>^m4<m 


RSITY  OF   GUIFORNU 


LIBRARY    OF   THE    UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA 


LIBRARY    OF   THE- UNIVEfl^TY   OF   CALIFORNIA 


\^ 


^^m 


\Iq    ••- 

RSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA 

1 


LIBRARY    OF   THE   UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA 


'^^^ffi  I 


SITY   OF   CALIFORNIA 

ft) 


LIBRARY    OF   THE    UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA 


LIBRARY 


SITY   OF   CALIFORNIA 


lIBRtDY  OF  THE   UKIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIt 


^ 


//^' 


THE  BEREAN: 


A    MAIVUAL 


FOR  THE  HELP  OF  THOSE  WHO  SEEK  THE  FAITH  OF  THE 


PRIMITIVE   CHURCH. 


BY  JOHN  H.  NOYES. 


THE    BEREANS   RECEIVED   THt    WORD   OF    THE    APOSTLES    WITH   ALL   READINESS   OF    MlND,     ANi? 
SEARCHED   THE    SCRIPTURES  DAILY,    WHETHER   THOSE    THINGS  WERE  SO.    ActS  17:  11. 


PUBLISHED  AT  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  SPIRITUAL  MAGAZINE^ 

PUTNEY,  VT. 

184T. 


£-7-75- 


LEONARD  AND  COMPANY,  PEINTEBS. 


CONTENTS 


Preface,        .                -                .                -                - 

PAGE. 
5 

The  Bible,             .... 

9 

Infidelity  among  Reformers, 

16 

Moral  Character  of  Unbelief, 

20 

Harmony  of  Moses  and  Christ,    •/ 

24 

The  Ultimate  Ground  of  Faith, 

27 

Guide  of  Interpretation, 

80 

Objections  of  Anti-Spiritualists, 

43 

The  Faith  once  delivered  to  the  Saints,      - 

47 

Age  of    Spiritualism, 

62 

Spiritual  Nature  of  Man,  . 

65 

Animal  Magnetism, 

65 

The  Divine  Nature,     .                -                -                . 

78 

Creation,                .                 -                 -                 - 

90 

Origin  of  Evil,              .                 .                 -                 . 

97 

Parable  of  the  Sower, 

112 

Parentage  of  Sin  and  Holiness,  - 

114 

The   Cause  and  the  Cure,  ^  - 

115 

The  Atonement,            .                 -                 - 

121 

Cross  of  Christ,     -                 -                 -                 - 

129 

Bread  of  Life, 

132 

The  New  Covenant, 

139 

Salvation  from  Sin, 

149 

Perfectionism,        .                 -                 -                 - 

178 

He  that  committeth  Sin  is  of  the  Devil, 

182 

Paul  not  Carnal,    - 

188 

A  Hint  to  Temperance  Men, 

199 

Paul's  Views  of  Law,             -                - 

201 

Anti-legality  not  Antinomianism,    - 

218 

Two  Kinds  of  Antinomianism, 

222 

The  Second  Birth, 

223 

Twofold  Nature  of  the  Second  Birth,     - 

229 

Two  Classes  of  Believers, 

236 

The  Spiritual  Man, 

242 

Spiritual  Puberty, 

246 

Power  of  Christ's  Resurrection, 

252 

,  «-  f  1  .-^  f >>  f^ 


IV  CONTENTS. 

Outline  of  all  Experience,  -  -  ,     . 

The  Way  into  the  Holiest,     - 

Christian  Faith,  .  -  .  . 

Settlement  with  the  Past, 

Second  Coming  of  Christ, 

Stuart  on  Romans  13:  11, 

The  Man  of  Sin, 

Robinson  on  Matt.  24:  29—31, 

'  Mistake  of  the  Apostles,' 

Date  of  the  Apocalypse,         -  -  - 

Scope  of  the  Apocalypse, 

Dispensation  of  the  Fullness  of  Times, 

Tlie  Millennium,  -  -    '' 

The  Two  Witnesses, 

The  First  Resurrection, 

Bush  on  the  Resurrection, 

The  Keys  of  Hell  and  of  Death, 

Objections  to  the  Foregoing  Views  of  the  Resurrection, 

Review  of  Ballon  on  the  Resurrection, 

Connection  of  Regeneration  with  the  Resurrection, 

Second  Advent  to  the  Soul, 

Throne  of  David, 

Birthright  of  Israel,   -^  -  .  -  , 

The  Sabbath,   .  -  - 

Baptism, 

Marriage,       .•        - 

Apostolical  Succession, 

Puritan  Puseyism, 

Unity  of  the  Kingdom  of  God, 

Peace  Principles, 

The  Primary  Reform,    - 

Leadings  of  the  Spirit, 

Doctrine  of  Disunity,     - 

Fiery  Darts  Quenched, 

Love  of  Life,      (^'     V"-/      •'   h-  ' 

Abolition  of  Death,vi^    '  {^4-*f^}^ 

Condensation  of  Life,     - 

Principalities  and  Powers, 

Our  Relations  to  the  Primitive  Church, 


PREFACE 


The  articles  contained  in  this  book  were  originally  published  sepafatelj^ 
md  at  distant  intervals,  in  several  periodicals  with  which  the  author  was 
connected,  either  as  contributor  or  editor,  in  the  period  between  the  years 
1834  and  1846.  They  are  presented  here  with  few  alterations,  excepting 
those  which  were  made  necessary  by  the  progress  of  time,  and  the  difference 
between  the  proprieties  of  a  periodical  and  a  book.  The  principal  labor  in 
editing  the  present  publication,  has  been  that  of  selecting,  curtailing  and 
arranging, 

A  book  thus  compiled  will  naturally  lack  formal  coherency.  But  this  loss 
will  perhaps  be  compensated  in  common  minds,  by  the  superior  attractiveness 
of  short  articles,  and  definite  treatment  of  definite  subjects.  Moreover,  if  the 
believing  reader  finds  in  such  a  mass  of  broken  materials  a  substratum  of 
consistency  and  unity,  which  shall  help  him  to  a  comprehensive  system  of 
truth,  he  will  have  the  satisfaction  of  ascribing  it  more  to  the  power  and  care 
of  God,  than  to  the  logical  art  and  forecast  of  the  author. 

It  is  fair  that  a  preface  should  make  known  summarily  what  readers  may 
expect  in  the  book  before  them.  We  present  therefore  here,  the  following 
frank  synopsis  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  this  book,  as  they  are  distinguished 
from  the  doctrines  of  the  most  popular  sects. 

1.  In  relation  to  the  Godhead^  we  agree  with  Trinitarians  on  the  one  hand, 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  a  divine  person,  co-eternal  with  the  Father,  and  was  his 
agent  in  the  work  of  Creation.  But  we  agree  with  Unitarians,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  Father  is  greater  than  he,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  a 
distinct  person,  but  an  emanation  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  We  believe, 
not  in  the  Trinity,  nor  in  the  Unity,  but  in  the  Duality  of  the  Godhead ;  and 
that  Duality  in  our  view,  is  imaged  in  the  twofold  personality  of  the  first  man, 
who  was  made  '  male  and  female.'  Gen.  1:  27.  As  Adam  was  to  Eve,  so 
is  the  Father  to  the  Son ;  i.  e.  he  is  the  same  in  nature,  but  greater  in  power 
and  glory. 

2.  In  relation  to  the  divine  decrees^  election^  and  reprolation,  we  agree 
Avith  Calvinists,  that  God  from  the  beginning  fore-ordained  all  that  comes  to 
pass  in  heaven  and  earth  ;  and  that  this  fore-ordination  includes  the  election 
of  the  saved  and  the  reprobation  of  the  lost.  But  we  agree  with  anti-Calvin-^ 
ists  that  God  did  not  by  decree,  choice,  or  permission,  give  birth  to  evil. 
We  hold  that  the  '  wicked  one,'  who  is  the  father  of  all  evil,  did  not  originata 


I 


Vi  PREFACE. 

in  heaven  or  earth,  but  existed  from  eternity ;  and  that  his  existence  and 
wickedness,  like  the  existence  and  goodness  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  is  not 
a  subject,  but  an  antecedent,  of  the  divine  decrees  ;  that  the  fore-ordination 
of  God,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  evil  events,  such  as  the  sin  and  reprobation  of 
the  wicked,  is  predicated  upon  and  necessitated  by  pre-existent  evil;  and  con- 
sequently that  all  the  odium  which  justly  attaches  to  the  fore-ordination  of  such 
events,  is  due  to  the  devil.  God  fore-ordained  the  admission  of  sin  and  evil 
into  creation,  not  arbitrarily,  but  because  the  judgment  and  destruction  of 
the  uncreated  evil  one  required  that  measure  ;  he  decreed  the  reprobation  of 
a  part  of  mankind,  because  he  foreknew  that  as  the  seed  of  the  evil  one  they 
would  be  incorrigible  sinners ;  and  he  elected  the  other  part  to  salvation, 
because  he  foreknew  that  as  the  seed  of  the  Son  of  man  they  would  have 
*  honest  and  good  hearts.' 

3.  In  relation  to  human  depravity^  we  agree  with  the  orthodox  that  in 
consequence  of  Adam's  .  transgression,  all  men  are  born  under  the  spiritual 
power  of  Satan,  or,  in  scripture  language,  that  the  '  whole  world  iieth  in  the 
wicked  one^  (see  1  John  5:  19,  in  the  original,)  and  that  in  this  sense  hu- 
man depravity  is  total.  We  hold  also  that  a  part  of  mankind  are  not  only 
born  under  the  power  of  the  wicked  one,  but  are  of  his  seed,  (1  John  3:  12,) 
and  consequently  that  their  depravity  is  in  every  sense  total.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  we  agree  with  Pelagians,  Socinians,  &c.,  in  relation  to  another 
part  of  mankind,  that  their  depravity  is  not  originally  inherent  in  their  indi- 
vidual souls,  but  is  superinduced  by  extraneous  spiritual  influence,  and  in  this 
sense  is  not  total ;  that  their  hearts  are  so  far  '  honest  and  good,'  that  the 
word  of  God  when  it  comes  to  them,  finds  in  them  an  ear  of  sympathy. 

4.  In  relation  to  the  atonement^  we  agree  with  the  orthodox  in  the  general 
truth  that  reconciliation  between  God  and  man  was  effected  by  the  incarnation 
and  death  of  the  second  person  of  the  Godhead.  But  we  differ  from  them  in 
regard  to  the  mode  of  the  reconciliation.  Their  atonement  is  primarily  legal  : 
ours  is  primarily  qnritual.  They  say  that  Christ  died,  that  he  might  satisfy 
the  demands  of  the  law  in  the  place  of  sinners.  AVe  say  that  the  object  of 
Christ's  death  was,  1,  that  he  might  perfect  himself  in  all  human  sympathies, 
and  so  make  himself  a  complete  spiritual  mediator  between  God  and  all  men 
— the  living  and  the  dead  ;  (Heb.  2:  17,  Rom.  14:  9  ;)  2,  that  he  might, 
through  death,  destroy  the  spiritual  power  of  the  devil,  in  whom  all  men,  by 
nature,  are  held  captives  ;  (Heb.  2:  14  ;)  3,  that  he  might  (to  use  a  mili- 
tary expression)  outflank  the  law  which  is  '  the  strength  of  sin,'  by  passmg 
beyond  its  precincts  into  the  life  of  the  resurrection,  and  there  presenting 
himself  to  mankind  as  the  rallying  point  of  faith,  the  head  of  a  spiritual  body 
which  is  free  from  tlie  law,  because  it  belongs  to  a  world  on  which  the  law 
has  no  claim.  Rom.  7:  4.  Col.  2:  11 — 20.  The  case  may  be  briefly  stated 
in  other  words  thus :  The  reconciliation  of  man  to  God  required  that  there 


PREFACE.  71t 

should  be,  first,  a  union  of  the  Father  to  the  Mediator ;  and  secondly,  a  union 
of  the  Mediator  to  man.  The  first  union  was  involved  in  the  divine  nature 
of  the  Mediator,  and  existed  from  eternity.  Of  course  it  only  remained  to 
bring  about  a  union  between  the  Mediator  and  man.  The  first  step  toward 
this  object  was  the  incarnation  of  the  Mediator.  Then  it  was  necessary,  first, 
that  the  incarnate  Mediator  should  descend  into  the  lowest  depths  of  human 
sufiering,  that,  by  spiritual  sympathy,  he  might  reach  all  men ;  secondly,  that 
he  should  break  the  power  of  the  devil  by  whom  men  are  alienated  from  the 
life  of  God ;  and  thirdly,  that  he  should  remove  those  whom  he  had  thus 
reached  and  released,  from  under  the  condemning  and  sin-occasioning  power 
of  the  law.  All  this  was  necessary  to  effect  a  stable  junction  between  the 
Mediator  and  man :  and  all  this  was  accomphshed  by  the  death  of  Christ. 
This  is  the  atonement.  As  to  the  extent  of  its  bearing,  it  is  obvious  from  its 
nature,  that  it  opens  the  door  of  salvation  to  all.  The  incarnation  of  Christ 
placed  him  in  sympathy  with  human  nature  as  a  whole.  His  death  acquainted 
him  with  all  human  suffering.  His  overthrow  of  Satan's  power  shattered  the 
prison  house  of  the  race.  His  resurrection  gave  an  accessible  refuge  from 
the  law  to  all.  If  any  are  not  saved  it  is  not  because  the  atonement  is  limited, 
hvi  because  they  have  no  will  to  avail  themselves  of  it — no  ear  for  the  gospel 
which  proclaims  it. 

5.  In  relation  to  regeneration,  we  agree  with  the  new  school  men  and  legal- 
ists  generally,  that  the  motives  of  the  law  and  a  change  of  purpose  in  the 
creature,  are  necessary  preparations  to  the  second  birth.  But  we  agree  with 
the  antinomians  and  spirituahsts  generally,  that  the  substance  of  the  second 
birth  itself,  is  a  change  effected  only  by  the  Spirit  of  God — a  change,, not  of 
purpose  or  acts,  but  of  spiritual  condition — a  divorce  of  the  human  spirit  from 
the  powder  of  Satan,  and  a  junction  with  the  Spirit  of  God.  We  agree  with 
the  Quakers  that  regeneration  is  a  progressive  work,  including  the  outward 
cleansing  effected  by  external  moral  and  spiritual  influences,  and  the  inward 
quickening  communicated  by  the  life  of  Christ  through  faith. 

6.  In  relation  to  the  holiness  of  behevcTS,  we  agree  with  the  most  ultra 
class  of  Perfectionists,  that  whoever  is  born  of  God  is  altogether  free  from  sin. 
But  we  hold  that  the  second  birth  is  not  attained  till  the  atonement  is  spirit- 
ually apprehended — till  the  perfect  will  of  Christ  crucified  is  received  into  the 
heart,  his  victory  over  the  devil  perceived  and  realized,  and  his  freedom  from 
law  by  the  resurrection  appropriated.  This  spiritual  apprehension  of  the 
atonement,  is  not  attained  (ordinarily  at  least)  in  the  first  stages  of  disciple- 
ship.^  Hence  we  hold  with  imperfectionists  generally,  that  there  was  in  the 
primitive,  church,  and  is  now,  a  class  properly  called  believers  or  disciples, 
(not  sons  of  (Jod,)  who,  though  not  free  from  sin,  are  yet;  in  an  important 
sense  followers  of  Christ,  and  members  of  his  church. 


Vlll  PREFACE. 


7.  In  relation  to  the  perseverance  of  the  saints,  we  agree  with  Calvlnlsts 
that  whoever  is  born  of  God  will  infallibly  persevere  in  holiness,  unto  salva- 
tion. But  we  hold  with  Methodists  that  the  relation  of  sinful  disciples  to  God 
IS  not  in  its  nature  perpetual ;  that  the  promises  to  them  are  conditional ; 
and  that  they  are  liable  to  fall  away  to  perdition. 

8.  In  relation  to  the  judgment,  we  agree  with  the  Universalists  that  the 
second  coming  of  Christ  took  place  in  connection  with  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  But  we  differ  from  them  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  that  event ; 
believing  that  Christ  hterally  came  in  the  spiritual  world  at  the  time  predicted 
in  Matt.  24,  and  sat  in.  judgment  on  that,  part  of  mankind,  both  quick  and 
dead,  who  previous  to  that  time  had  been  ripened  for  the  harvest  of  destiny, 
by  the  influences  of  the  Jewish  dispensation  and  the  gospel  of  Christ  and  the 
apostles.  "VYe  also  differ  from  Universalists  and  certain  classes  of  Perfection- 
ists, and  agree  with  most  other  sects,  in  believing  that  the  final  judgment  of 
miankind  is  yet  future — that  it  will  take  place  at  the  end  of  the  '  times  of  the 
Gentiles,'  as  the  judgment  of  the  second  coming  took  place  at  the  end  of  the 
times  of  the  Jews. 

9.  In  relation  to  future  retribution,  we  agree  with  Calvinists  that  they  who 
sow  to  the  flesh  will  reap  eternal  punishment.  But  we  concede  to  Universal- 
ists that,  if  the  Calvinistic  theory  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  devil,  and  of  the 
unnecessitated  fore-ordination  of  human  wickedness,  were  true,  the  doctrine 
of  universal  salvation  would  be  justly  inferred  from  the  benevolence  and 
omnipotence  of  God. 

'As  Bereans,  we  have  sought  out  these  conclusions.  To  help  Bereans,  we 
have  written  from  time  to  time  ;  and  to  the  study  of  Bereans  we  now  com- 
mend this  collection ;  desiring  for  it  only  that  it  may  be  a  servant  of  the 
Bible,  and  for  its  readers  that '  with  all  readiness  of  mind  they  may  receive 
the  word,  and  search  the  scriptures  daily  whether  these  things  are  so.' 


THE    BEREAN 


§1.     THE  BIBLE. 

As  the  Bible  is  tlie  record  of  God's  past  communications  with  men,  and 
especially  of  his  manifestation  of  himself  in  Christ  and  in  the  primitive  church, 
so  it  is  the  most  valuable  external  conductor  of  his  continued  communica- 
tions, and  his  appointed  means  of  making  known  to  all  generations  the  work 
of  his  Son.  The  continuation  of  the  primitive  gospel — that  by  which  the 
communication  with  God,  opened  by  the  atonement,  is  hept  open  to  the  world 
— is  not  a  church,  or  a  set  of  ordinances,  or  a  line  of  successors  to  the  apos- 
tles, but  it  is  the  Bible.  By  the  ^gible,  Christ  and  the  apostles  utter  their 
proclamation  across  the  ages  that  have  past  since  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem. By  it  they  yet  live  and  speak  on  earth.  Christ  promised  that  '  the 
gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against  his  church.'  Thus  far  the  only  church 
which  has  had  a  clear  right  to  be  called  his,  is  that  which  was  in  immediate 
personal  communication  with  him,  which  completed  the  Bible,  and  which 
passed  within  the  veil  at  the  end  of  the  apostolic  age.  But  let  no  man  say 
that  the  '  gates  of  hell'  have  prevailed  against  that  church,  even  in  this 
world,  till  the  voice  of  the  New  Testament  has  been  silenced — till  the  Bible 
has  sunk  in  obUvion.  Papists  and  Puseyites  need  not  thrust  forward  their 
line  of  priests  to  save  the  promise.     It  is  safe  without  them. 

The  Bible,  being  thus  the  representative  and  organ  of  Christ's  kingdom  in 
the  world,  has,  of  course,  been  the  centre  of  conflict  between  the  powers  of 
good  and  evil.  Heaven  has  protected  it  and  cheered  it  omvard  in  its  mission. 
Hell  has  struggled  to  destroy  its  influence  and  its  integrity. 

The  Jews  were  God's  first  secretary,  and  kept  his  records  till  the  advent 
of  Christ.  But  at  that  time  they  revolted  against  him,  and  refused  to  take 
charge  of  the  New  Testament.  He  cashiered  them,  and  gave  their  oflice  to 
the  Gentile  church. 

The  new  secretary,  when  he  had  grown  gi'cat,  and  put  on  the  crown  of 
Popery,  became  the  instrument  of  the  same  diabolical  enmity  against  the 
word  of  God  which  had  comipted  the  Jews,  and  turned  the  power  of  his 
office  against  the  trust  committed  to  him.  He  kept  the  Bible  safely,  but  he 
'  kept  it  laid  up  in  a  napkin'  instead  of  putting  it  to  the  exchangers,  and  so 
proved  to  be  an  evil  servant.  He  too  was  turned  out  of  office.  The  Refor- 
mation gave  the  Bible  into  the  hands  of  the  Protestant  churches ;  and  at  the 
1 


10  Tnji:  ciCLE* 

same  time  the  invention  of  the  art  of  printing  scattered  it  far  and  Avide,  and 
made  its  suppression  thenceforth  impossible. 

It  must  be  acknowlcdp;ed  to  the  honor  of  the  third  secretary,  that  he  haa 
tlnis  far  discharged  liis  office  with  a  good  degree  of  fidcUty.  The  leading 
Protestant  churches,  whatever  else  may  be  laid  to  their  charge,  have  not  es- 
sentially mutilated  or  suppressed  the  Bible.  They  have  indeed  loaded  it 
with  perverting  commentaries,  and  drawn  it  to  and  fro  in  their  sectarian  dif- 
ferences ;  but  -it  may  be  considered  as  a  fair  oftset  for  this,  that  they  have 
cherished  a  zeal  for  biblical  investigation,  and  have  scattered  the  word,  with- 
out comment,  over  a  great  part  of  the  earth.  We  freely  and  gratefully  ac- 
knowledge our  indebtedness  to  the  influences  of  the  Congregational  church, 
and  to  the  lal)ors  of  such  men  as  Stuart  and  Robinson,  for  many  incentives 
and  facilities  to  biblical  study. 

But  the  war  Avhich  Satan  of  old  waged  against  the  testimony  of  God,  has 
not  ceased.  It  has  assumed  a  new  form.  The  enemy,  finding  it  hnpossilde 
either  to  exclude  a  part  of  the  Bible  astlie  Jews  would  have  done,  or  to  su])- 
press  the  whole,  as  the  Papists  attempted  to  do,  has  set  himself  to  resist  its 
invading  influences  by  discrediting  its  authority.  Infidelity,  hi  various  forms, 
is,  in  modern  times,  the  most  active  assailant  of  the  scriptures. 

The  infidels  of  the  last  century  were  open  and  bold  in  tlicir  hostility,  giving 
no  quarter  to  any  part  of  the  Bible,  and  seeking  to  destroy  it  by  main  force 
of  scofting  and  blasphemy.  The  French  Revolution  was  in  part,  to  say  the 
least,  the  fruit  of  their  labor ;  and  its  horrors  w^ere  such  that  a  strong  re- 
action against  the  principles  of  the  blasphemers  and  in  favor  of  the  Bible, 
took  place.  The  event  and  the  result  may  well  be  described  in  the  language 
of  the  Revelator  concerning  the  two  witnesses  :  '  There  was  a  great  earth- 
quake, and  the  tenth  part  of  the  city  fell,  and  in  tlie  earthrjuake  vere  slain 
of  men  seven  thousand  ;  and  the  remnant  tvere  affri(jhted,  and  gave  glory 
to  the  G-od  of  heaven.''  Rev.  11:  13. 

The  hifidel  spirit,  in  its  second  attack  on  the  Bible,  which  is  now  in  pro- 
gress, has  adopted  a  new  and  more  prudent  system  of  tactics.  The  fashion 
is  to  discriminate  between  certain  parts  of  the  Bible  and  others.  It  has  been 
found  impossible  to  destroy  the  entire  credit  of  the  sacred  writers  by  summary 
scoffing,  and  the  next  method  is  to  separate  them  and  cut  them  up  in  detail, 
by  speaking  respectfully  of  some  of  them  to  save  appearances,  while  the 
war  is  carried  on  against  the  rest.  Some  of  those  who  are  employed  by  the 
spiiit  of  infidelity  in  this  way,  profess  to  honor  the  New  Testament,  but 
speak  slightingly  of  the  Old ;  othei-s  adhere  to  the  four  gospels,  but  des})ise 
the  writings  of  the  apostles.  They  generally  agree  in  conceding  to  public 
sentiment  that  Jesus  was  a  great  and  good  man,  and  that  those  books  of 
scripture  which  relate  directly  to  him  have  some  sort  of  divine  authority ; 
but  '  as  for  this  Moses,'  say  some  of  them,  '  we  wot  not  what  has  become 
of  hhn  ;'-^as  for  Paul^^  say  others,  '  who  made  him  a  ruler  and  a  judge 
over  us  V  This  is  the  kind  of  infidelity  which,  according  to  our  observation, 
is  creeping  in  at  every  opening,  especially  among  '  refonncrs,'  and  scceders 
from  the  churches.     We  meet  it  thus : 

The  credit  of  the  Bible,  as  a  whole,  is  identified  with  the  credit  of  Jesus 


THE   BIELE.  11 

Ckrlsfc.  The  Olil  Testament,  as  it  is  at  this  day,  existed  when  he  was  on 
earth,  and  he  endorsed  it,  by  assuming  it  as  the  basis  of  his  own  reUgious 
system.  The  New  Testament  is  the  work  of  his  accredited  agents,  and  ho 
is  responsilde  f  n*  its  sentiments,  as  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  re- 
S[)onsible  for  the  sentiments  of  his  official  organ.  The  Bible  therefore  will 
stand  or  fall  with  Christ,  and  Christ  will  stand  or  fall  with  the  Bible.  Who- 
ever discredits  one,  discredits  both.  Whoever  honors  one,  honors  both. — ■ 
Whoever  loves  Christ,  and  knows  the  power  of  his  grace,  loves  the  Bible  as 
a  whole,  and  knows  that  it  is  a  vehicle  of  spiritual  light  and  life.  These 
propositions  we  proceed  to  defend. 

L  CiiiirsT  E.Yi>ORSED  THE  Old  TESTAMENT.  It  was  liis  Constant  praxjtice 
to  ([uote  the  Jewish  scriptures  as  authorities  in  his  discourses.  He  cited  or 
referred  to  all  the  i)rincipal  books  in  the  Old  Testanient.  The  reader  may 
examine  at  his  leisure  the  following  list  of  endorsements.  Christ  cites  from 
the  book  of  Genesis,  in  Matt.  19:  4,  5,  24:  37,  Luke  17:  29.  From  IJi-o^ 
das,  in  Matt.  5:  21,  27,  38,  38,  15:  4,  19: 18, 19,  22:  32.  From  Leviticus, 
in  Matt.  5:  43,  John  7:  22.  From  Namhers,  in  Matt.  12:  5,  John  3:  14. 
From  Deideronomt./,  in  Matt.  4:  4,  7,  10,  5:  31,  19:  7,  8,  John  8:  17. 
From  Samml,  hi  Matt.  12:  3.  From  Kings,  in  Matt.  12:  42,  Luke  4:  25 
2i3,  27.  From  Chronicles,  in  Matt.  23:  3o.  From  Psalms,  in  Matt.  5:  5, 
21:  16,  42,  22:  43,  27:  4(3,  John  7:  42,  10:  34,  13:  18,  15:  25.  From 
Proverbs,  hi  Luke  14:  8.  From  Isaiah,  in  Matt.  13:  14,  15:  8,  Mark  9: 
44,  Luke  4:  18,  19,  22:  37,  23:  30.  '  From  Jeremiah,  in  Matt.  21;  13. 
From  Daniel,  in  M;itt.  24:  15.  From  Ilosea,  in  Matt.  9:  13,  Luke  23:  30. 
From  Jonah,  in  Matt.  12:  40,  16:  4.  From  Micah,  in  Matt.  10:  35,  36. 
From  Zechariah,  in  Matt.  26:  31.     From  3£alachi,  in  Matt.  11:  10,  14. 

The  following  passages,  in  which  the  Old  Testament  is  designated  by  the 
various  expressions,  ''the  law  and  the  prophets,^  'the  scriptures,^  &c.,  show 
Christ's  ordinary  manner  of  testifying  his  respect  for  the  sacred  books. — 
Matt.  5:  17,  18.  'Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  pro- 
])hct3 :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you, 
till  heaven  and  eartli  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the 
law,  till  all  be  fulfilled.  7:  12.  'All  things  wliatsoevcr  ye  would  that  men 
sliould  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them  :  for  this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets.' 
22:  37 — 10.  'Jesus  said  unto  him,  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with 
all  tliy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind.  This  is  the  first 
and  great  commandment.  And  the  second  is  like  unto  it.  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighljor  as  thyself.  On  these  two  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and 
the  prophets.'  Luke  24:  25 — 27.  '  He  said  unto  them,  0  f<x)ls,  and  slow 
of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the  prophets  have  spoken !  Ought  not  Christ  to 
have  suffered  these  tilings,  and  to  have  entered  into  his  glory?  And  begin- 
ning at  Moses,  and  all  tlie  prophets,  he  expoumled  unto  them  in  all  the  scrip- 
tures the  things  concerning  himself.'  Ver.  44.  '  He  said  unto  them.  These 
are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto  you,  Avhile  I  was  yet  with  you,  tliat  all 
things  must  be  fulfilled  which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the 
prophets,  and  in  the  Psalini,  concerning  me.'  John  5:  39.  '  Search  th9 
sci'iptares ;  for  in  them  ye  think  yo  have  eternal  fife  :    and  they  are  they 


12  THE   BIBLE.    ' 

wlilch  testify  of  mc'  Vcr.  46, 47.  '  Had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have 
believed  me  :  for  he  wrote  of  me.  But  if  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how 
shall  ye  believe  my  words  V     John  10:  35.  '  The  scripture  cannot  be  broken. 

Christ  never  sjioke  disrespectfully  or  doubtingly  of  the  Old  Q'estament. 
He  lal)orcd,  not  to  unsettle,  but  to  confirm  the  confidence  of  the  Jews  in 
their  scrijitures.  Some  of  the  precepts  of  Moses  were  obviously  accommo- 
dated to  the  darkne?:,  of  the  ai;e  in  which  he  lived,  and  Christ  changed  them. 
(Sec  Matt,  n:  21 — 18,  19:  8.)  But  he  prefaced  his  alterations  with  the 
most  solemn  declai-ation  that  he  '  came  not  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets, 
but  to  fulfil ;'  (Matt,  o:  17  ;)  in  the  same  discoui-se  he  honored  the  law  and 
tlic  prophets  by  declaring  their  essence  to  be  the  '  golden  rule  ;'  (Matt.  7: 
12  ;)  he  gave  a  reason  for  the  imperfection  of  the  Jewish  law  Avhich  implied 
no  ^^•ong  ui  Moses;  (Matt.  19:  8 ;)  and  instead  of  setting  himself  against 
Moses,  he  appealed  to  the  predictions  of  Moses  for  his  authority  as  the  ulti- 
mate lawgiver.  (See  John  5:  45 — 47,  and  compare  Acts  3:  22.)  He  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  abolishment  of  the  ritual  institutions  of  Closes  ;  but  in 
the  meantime,  till  tlie  full  period  allotted  them  was  finished,  he  scrupulously 
respected  the  authority  of  those  who  'satin  Moses'  seat.'  (See  Matt.  23:  2, 
and  8:  4.)  Finally,  the  manifestation  of  Moses  and  Elijah  with  him  in  glory 
on  the  Mount,  signally  sealed  his  alliance  with  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

From  all  this  it  is  evident  that  they  who  lightly  esteem  the  Old  Testament 
arc  not  followci-s  or  sincere  friends  of  Jesus,  however  they  may  think  it  expe- 
dient to  say  many  fine  things  about  him.  In  fact  their  position  implies  one 
of  two  slanderous  charges  against  him,  viz :  that  he  was  imposed  upon  by 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  or  that  he  practised  imposition  on  others. 

II.  The  apostles  were  the  official  representatives  of  christ,  and 

HIS  CREDIT  IS   IDENTIFIED    WITH  THE  CREDIT   OF  THEIR  AVRITINGS.      In  the 

first  place,  as  Christ  wrote  nothing  himself,  all  we  know  about  him  comes 
from  his  apostles  and  their  assistants.  If  the  four  gospels  are  not  true  accounts 
of  Chiist,  we  have  no  true  account  of  him — the  whole  basis  of  his  credit 
vanishes,  and  we  are  left  m  the  absurdity  of  honoring  a  man  of  whom  we 
know  nothing  except  that  he  had  not  undei-standing  or  benevolence  enough 
to  make,  or  provide  for  making,  a  true  record  of  his  life  and  principles.  Even 
the  scmi-infidels,  therefore,  who  speak  well  of  Christ,  but  despise  the  apostles, 
are  forced  to  accept  that  part  of  the  writings  of  the  apostles  which  relates 
directly  to  Christ. 

Assuming  then  the  tnith  of  the  gospels,  we  inquire  of  them  what  authority 
Christ  gave  the  apostles.  Their  answer  is  contained  in  the  following  passa- 
je^cs :  '  H(  that  rcrclvrth  you^  receiveth  me ;  andhe  that  receiveth  ine,  recdveth 
him  that  io-nt  mp,.'  Matt.  10:  40.  The  parallel  passage  in  Luke  is  stronger : 
''Ue  thMharcth  you,  hearcth  me;  and  he  that  desjnseth you,  despiseth  me; 
and  h£  tJuit  despineth  me,  despiseth  him  that  sent  me.'  10:  16.  These  dec- 
laratioag  were  made  when  Christ  first  empowered  the  twelve  to  preach  and 
work  miracles,  but  they  cover  the  whole  period  of  the  apostles'  mission,  even 
to  the  Second  Coming,  as  is  evident  from  the  whole  tenor  of  the  10th  of 
JIattliew,  and  especially  from  the  23d  verse.  A  good  reason  for  the  honor 
thus  pat  upon  them,  is  given  in  vcr.  19,  20—'  But  when  they  deliver  you  up, 


THE   BIBLE.  a^ 

take  no  thoiiglit  how  or  what  yc  shall  speak  ;  for  it  shall  be  f^ivcii  you  in  tliafc 
same  hour  what  ye  shall  speak.  For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  hut  the  Spirit 
of  your  Father  that  speaketh  in  you.^  If  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  sp)oke  in 
them  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  it  also  wrote  by  them.  The  penalty 
for  despising  their  words  is  stated  in  ver.  14,  15, — '  Whosoever  shall  not 
receive  you,  nor  hear  your  words,  when  ye  depart  out  of  that  house  or  city, 
shake  off  the  dust  of  your  feet.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  it  shall  be  more 
tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in  the  day  of  judgment,  than 
for  that  city.'  This  tremendous  penalty  will  certainly  take  effect  on  those 
Avho  despise  their  written  word.  Christ,  in  his  last  conversation  with  the 
apostles,  promised  that  the  Spirit  of  truth  should  come  upon  them  and  should 
'  teach  them  all  things  and  bring  all  things  to  their  remembrance,  which  he 
had  said  to  them,'  and  '  lead  them  into  all  truth.'  He  also  promised  that 
they  should  do  the  works  which  he  did,  and  even  greater.  In  his  final  pray- 
er for  them  he  said — '/  have  manifested  thy  7iame  unto  the  men  which  thou 
gavest  me  out  of  the  world:  thine  they  were,  and  thou  gavest  them  me;  and 
they  have  kept  thy  word.  Now  they  have  known  that  all  things  whatsoever 
thou  hast  given  me,  are  of  thee.     For  I  have  given  unto  them  the  words 

which  thou  gavest  me ;  and  they  have  received  them 1  have  given 

them  thy  word;  and  the  world  hath  hated  them,  because  they  are  not  of  the 
world,  even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world.'  John  17:  6 — 8,  14.  Thus  having 
secured  their  qualification  to  be  his  substitutes,  he  declares  the  nature  of 
their  mission  in  these  emphatic  words :  ''As  thou  hast  sent  me  into  the  ivorld^ 
even  so  have  I  also  sent  them  into  theivorld.'*  Ver.  18.  So  again  after  he 
had  risen  from  the  dead,  he  said  to  them— 'Peace  he  unto  you :  as  my  Fa- 
ther hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  1  you.  And  ivhen  he  had  said  this,  he 
breathed  on  them,  and  saitJi  unto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose 
soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them  ;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye 
retain,  they  are  retained.''  John  20:  21 — 23. 

In  the  commission  which  Christ  gave  his  apostles  just  before  his  ascension, 
he  made  them  his  plenipotentiaries,  thus :  '  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  Hethatbelieveth,  and  is  baptized,  shall 
be  saved;  but  lie  that  believeth  not,  shall  he  damned.  And  these  signs  shall 
follow  them  that  believe :  m  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils ;  they  shall 
speak  with  new  tongues  ;  they  shall  take  up  sei'pents  ;  and  if  they  drink  any 
deadly  thing,  it  shall  not  hurt  them  ;  they  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick,  and 
they  shall  recover.  So  then  after  the  Lord  liad  spoken  unto  them,  he  w^is 
received  up  into  heaven,  and  sat  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  And  they  went 
forth,  and  preached  everywhere,  the  Lord  working  with  them,  and  confirm- 
ing the  word  with  signs  following.'  Mark  16:  15 — 20. 

Let  the  reader  further  consider  the  follomng  passages  :  '  I  say  unto  thee, 
that  thou  art  Peter ;  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church ;  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  shall  be 
loosed  in  heaven.'  Matt.  16:  18,  19.  '  Jesas  said  unto  them.  Verily  I  say 
unto  you,  that  ye  which  have  followed  me,  in  the  regeneration,  when  the  Son 
of  man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twchc  thrones, 


14  TlIK    lilBLE. 

jud.^in;,'  the  twelve  tn}>es  of  Israel/  10:  28.  '  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom, 
a-i  mv  Fatlior  hatli  a])iw»iiite(l  miUi  mc  :  that  ye  may  cat  and  drink  at  my  ta^ 
hie  in  mv  kingdom,  and  sit  on  thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.' 
Luke  22:  '2\K  '10.     Comiiarc  Kph.  2:  20,  and  Rev.  21:  14. 

In  all  this  there  is  ahundant  evidence  that  Christ  endorsed  the  doings,  say- 
ings and  writings  of  the  apostles  in  advance.  Every  gift  of  the  Spirit  whicli 
they  afterward  received,  and  every  miracle  which  they  performed,  renewed 
Ills  en<lorsement.     His  credit  is  inseparable  from  theirs. 

It  may  be  said  tliat  Paid,  not  being  one  of  the  original  twelve,  did  not 
come  under  this  endoi-sement.  We  reply,  Paul  professed  to  have  scon  Jesus 
Christ  in  the  spiritual  woiid,  and  to  have  received  from  him  a  plenary  apos- 
tolic connnission ;  and  for  the  truth  of  his  profession  we  have,  besides  the 
assurance  arising  from  his  own  character  as  a  witness,  two  sufhcient  vouchers,^ 
viz.,  the  numerous  and  miglity  miracles  which  he  wrought  in  the  name  of 
Jesus,  and  the  recoixled  acknowledgment  of  Peter.  By  this  latter  voucher 
he  is  fully  brought  in  with  the  other  apostles  under  the  endorsement  of  Christ. 
Peter  wiis  the  fii-st  officer  in  the  cabinet  of  Christ ;  and  he  not  only  acknow- 
ledged PauPs  commission  as  an  apostle  co-ordinate  with  himself,  (see  Gal. 
2:  9,)  but  expressly  recognized  his  epistles  as  part  of  the  word  of  God. — 
See  2  Pet.  3:16. 

The  New  Testament  is  just  what  we  might  expect  it  to  be,  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  Chnst  delegated  to  his  officei-s  authority  to  expound  his  principles 
and  works  to  the  world.  In  order  to  the  full  exhibition  of  Christianity  it  was 
necessary  that  there  should  be,  1,  a  history  of  the  life  of  Christ ;  2,  a  sketch 
of  what  followed  his  resurrection,  viz.,  the  advent  of  the  Spirit  and  the  first 
progress  of  his  kingdom  under  the  administration  of  his  heutenants  ;  3,  a 
systematic  ex])osition  of  the  theory  of  redemption  founded  on  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ ;  4,  a  code  of  morality,  with  suitable  injunctions  and 
warnings  against  erroi-s  ;  5,  an  exhibition  of  the  mature  results  of  Christian 
faith  ;  G,  a  sketch  of  the  futurity  of  Christ's  administration.  The  first  we 
have  in  the  evangelists  ;  the  second,  hi  the  book  of  Acts  ;  the  third,  in  the 
epistles  of  Paul ;  the  fourth,  in  the  whole  New  Testament ;  the  fifth,  in  the 
1st  epistle  of  John  ;  and  the  sixth,  hi  the  book  of  Revelations.  If  Christ 
did  not  ])rovide  f<jr  an  authentic  and  permanent  expose  of  his  kingdom,  of  this 
Icind,  it  is  impossible  to  defend  his  wisdom  or  goodness.  If  he  did,  we  have 
that  crpose  in  the  New  Testament ;  for  it  can  be  found  no  where  else. 

If  a  deist  will  admit  that  Jesus  was  a  wise  and  good  man,  ho  can  be  com- 
pelled to  ailmit  that  the  New  TesUiment  was  written  by  inspiration.  For 
1.  A  wise  and  good  man,  in  undertiiking  the  reformation  of  mankhid,  would 
fin*t  of  all  t{ike  pains  to  insure  a  correct  and  incorruptible  record  of  his  life 
and  principles.  2.  But  Jesus  did  not  personally/  make  any  record  of  the 
kind.^  He  must  therefore  have  had  an  assurance  that  his  followers  would  be 
//itallfied  for  the  task.  3.  But  his  followers,  as  iminsjnred  men,  were  7iot 
-qualified,  and  he  as  a  wine  man  must  have  known  it.  4.  Therefore  his  assu- 
rance that  they  would  be  <iu;dified,  must  have  been  an  assurance  that  they 
would  be  insiplrcd.  Or  the  argument  may  be  stated  in  another  form,  thus  : 
1.  A  wise  and  good  man,  undcrtakuig  the  reformation  of  mankind,  would 


TUB  BIBLE.  15 

Buffer  no  record  of  his  principles  to  be  pu])lislicd  \Nith  his  im])lic(l  pennission 
and  aiitliority,  unless  he  had  himself  superintended  the  U'ritlnij  of  it.  2.  But 
the  New  Testament  was  published  by  his  permission  and  autliority,  implied 
in  the  fact  that  it  was  published  by  his,  representatives,  and  that  he  made  no 
other  record  of  his  principles.  3.  Therefore  he  must  have  superintended  the 
writing  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  as  he  was  not  visibly  present  at  the 
writing  of  it,  he  must  have  superintended  it  by  inspiration. 

The  connection  between  Christ  and  the  apostles  is  a  vital  one,  and  cannot 
be  severed  without  breaking  the  line  of  communication  between  God  and  man. 
If  he  is  the  head,  they  are  the  neck  of  that  spiritual  body  which  is  the  ve- 
hicle of  salvation  to  the  world.  A  blow  aimed  at  the  neck  is  as  deadly  to 
the  body  as  one  aimed  at  the  head.  If  he  '  sent  them  even  as  the  Father 
sent  him,'  their  work  was  as  necessary  as  his ;  and  contempt  of  their  wri- 
tings is  as  antichristian  as  contempt  of  his  words.  Accordingly  the  apostle 
John  sets  forth  a  twofold  test  of  the  spirit  of  antichrist.  '  Beloved,'  says  he, 
'  believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether  they  be  of  God ;  because 
many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  world.  Hereby  know  ye  the  spirit 
of  God ;  ever^  spirit  that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  fleshy 
is  of  God ;  and  every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  fleshy  is  not  of  God.  [This  is  the  first  criterion,  and  it  relates  to  the 
first  link  in  the  chain  of  union  between  God  and  man.  The  apostle  proceeds,] 
And  this  is  that  spirit  of  antichrist,  whereof  ye  have  heard  that  it  should 
come  ;  and  even  now  already  is  it  in  the  world.  Ye  are  of  God,  Uttle  chil- 
dren, and  have  overcome  them  ;  because  greater  is  he  that  is  in  you  than  he 
that  is  in  the  world.  They  are  of  the  world  ;  therefore  speak  they  of  the 
world,  and  the  world  heareth  them.  We  are  of  God  :  he  that  knotveth  God, 
heareth  vs  ;  he  that  is  not  of  God,  heareth  not  us :  hereby  hnoiv  zue  the  sp>irit 
of  truth  and  the  spirit  of  error."*  Here  is  the  second  criterion,  relating  to 
the  second  link  of  the  chain.  Antichrist  attacks  Christianity  on  two  vital 
points.  He  strikes  first  at  Christ's  incarnation ;  and  secondly,  at  the  credit 
of  the  apostles.  The  first  point  most  needed  defense  in  the  primitive  age  ; 
for  it  was  long  before  the  adversary  allowed  the  advent  of  the  Son  of  God  to 
to  become  a  fixed  fact.  The  principal  conflict  at  the  present  day  seems  to 
be  gathering  about  the  second  point.  The  incarnation  of  Christ  has  estab- 
lished itself  in  popular  belief;  but  it  is  quite  a  fashionable  and  spreading  cus- 
tom to  doubt  and  deny  the  authority  of  Christ's  lieutenants. 

It  appears  from  the  preceding  argument,  that  the  Bible  as  a  w^hole  is  un- 
der the  protection  of  Christ's  endorsement,  and  can  only  be  assailed  by  as- 
sailing him.  The  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  not  to  bear  the 
brunt  of  the  infidel  onset,  but  Christ  who  stands  in  the  midst  of  them, 
staking  his  credit  for  theirs,  and  challenging  the  hosts  of  hell  to  strike  him, 
if  they  wish  to  strike  them.  They  who  sneer  at  Moses  and  Paul,  while  they 
pretend  to  honor  Christ,  will  find,  when  they  understand  the  relation  which 
Christ  bears  to  Moses  and  Paul,  that  they  have  mistaken  their  policy. — 
Concessions  in  favor  of  Christ  and  the  four  gospels,  give  behevers  a  stand- 
point, from  which  they  can  sally  both  ways,  and  rout  with  case  and  certainty 
all  adversaries  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.     The  semi-infidels  may 


16  INFIDELITY  AMOXG  REFORMERS.  ' 

«3  well  return,  first  as  last,  to  the  war-cry  of  A^oltairc — 'Crush  tJienrctchP 
— for  they  can  novor  crush  any  part  of  the  Bible-phalanx  till  they  crush 
Christ. 


§  2.     INFIDELITY  AMONG  REFORMERS. 

The  spirit  of  infideUty,  when  it  works  under  the  cover  of  reform,  and 
with  professions  of  respect  for  some  portions  of  the  Bible,  is  more  captiva- 
ting and  dangerous  than  when  it  stands  forth  in  honest  nakedness.  Thus 
disguised,  it  infects  not  merely  open  despisers  of  religion,  but  many  who 
were  once  sober  and  devout.  Having  given  some  attention  to  this  particular 
disease,  we  propose  to  present  our  views  of  its  nature,  and  of  its  rise  and 
progi-ess  among  reformers  in  this  country. 

I.  The  nature  of  the  disease.  Infidelity  in  general,  is  a  state  of 
mind,  in  which  the  moral  affection,  called  by  phrenologists,  Veneration,  is 
overborne  and  neutralized  by  some  stronger  aifection.  As  '  the  fear  of  the 
Lord  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom,'  so  casting  off  the  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the 
beginning  of  skeptical  folly.  Reverence  for  God  is  the  protecting  rampart 
of  the  Bible.  "Whoever  fears  his  Maker  will  handle  carefully  the  book  which 
professes  to  be  his  word,  and  search  diligently,  before  he  rejects  it.  This 
reverent  cautiousness  is  all  that  the  Bible  or  its  Author  demands  from  those 
who  have  not  yet  ascertained  its  truth  by  rational  investigation.  The  Bible 
asks  no  favors  of  mere  marvelousness.  Infidels  will  be  condemned  in  the 
day  of  account,  not  for  refusing  to  swalloAV  all  the  absurd  marvels  which 
priestcraft  offered  them,  nor  even  for  hesitating  to  believe  all  the  contents  of 
the  Bible  :  but  because  they  had  not  humility  and  reverence  enough  to  sus- 
pend judgment  until  they  had  given  the  message  of  God  a  fair  trial ;  because 
they  '  spoke  evil  of  things  which  they  understood  not ;'  because  they  Avould 
not  take  the  trouble  to  discriminate  between  a  true  revelation  and  the  im- 
postures of  fanatics,  but  condemned  the  innocent  with  the  guilty,  in  lynch- 
law  recklessness. 

Probably  in  most  cases  of  infidelity.  Veneration  is  overborne  by  Self-esteem 
in  combination  with  Causality  and  Combativeness.  Men  are  too  proud  and 
confident  in  the  sufficiency  of  their  reason,  to  give  the  Bible  a  reverent  ex- 
amination. But  in  the  particular  form  of  the  disease  of  which  w^e  are 
treating,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  Bc7ievolence,  in  many  cases,  is  the 
usurping  affection  which  prostrates  Veneration.  The  enthusiasm  of  refonn 
which  has  burst  forth  within  a  few  years,  has  made  many  exceedingly  fierce 
for  doing  good.  Their  zeal  has  been  too  fervent  to  wait  on  the  slow  move- 
ments, by  which  God  and  the  Bible  are  working  out  redemption  for  man. — 
They  have  devised  more  summary  processes  ;  and  then,  by  little  and  Httle, 
casting  off  conservative  reverence,  they  have  learned  at  last  to  trample  on 
the  Bible  boldly,  whenever  they  conceive  that  it  crosses  the  path  of  their 
favorite  enterprises  for  human  improvement. 


INFIDELITY  AMONG  REFORMERS.      '  17 

Persons  wlio  have  been  beguiled  into  this  course,  may  flatter  themselves 
that  a  sentiment  so  lovely  and  virtuous  as  benevolence,  cannot  lead  to  any 
great  mischief ;  that  the  fervor  of  their  philanthropy  will  excuse  them  for 
stifling  veneration,  and  thrusting  aside  the  word  of  God.  But  we  are  sure 
that  any  amount  of  good  which  they  can  do  without  the  Bible,  will  be  ac- 
counted in  the  day  of  judgment  as  but  dust  in  the  balance,  against  the  mis- 
chief effected  by  discrediting  God's  main  instrument  of  redemption.  We  are 
sure  that  nothing  can  excuse  ignorance  or  forgetfulness  of  the  truth  that  the 
fear  of  the  Lord  is  a  higher  duty  than  philanthropy ;  that  the  rights  of  God 
are  immeasurably  superior  to  *  human  rights.'  Incontinent,  misdirected  be- 
nevolence is  not  less — perhaps  more — destructive  in  its  ultimate  efiects,  than 
any  lust  of  human  nature.  And  it  must  be  considered,  that  the  evil  of  any 
usurpation  is  incurable  in  proportion  to  the  apparent  virtue,  and  consequent 
popularity  of  the  usurper.  ^ 

Let  pohtical  and  religious  Jacobins  rail  at  the  abuses  of  subordination,  with 
•which  this  priest-and-king-ridden  world  abounds,  as  they  may;  they  can  never 
erase  the  inscription  which  the  finger  of  God  has  written  on  the  scroll  of 
nature,  as  well  as  revelation  ;  assigning  the  throne  of  all  human  aflections  to 
Veneration.  The  organ  of  that  sentiment  is  literally  '  the  cro^vn  of  the  head' 
' — the  top-stone  of  the  cerebral  temple — the  center,  around  w^hich  all  the 
other  moral  affections  cluster  as  constituents.  Accordingly,  reverence  for  '^ 
parents  is  the  beauty  of  childhood  ;  and  the  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  glory  of 
manhood.  The  dethronement  of  Veneration,  therefore,  can  never  be  a 
trivial  disorder,  even  though  Benevolence  heads  the  msurrection. 

II.  The  rise  and  progress  of  infidelity  among  modern  reformers. 
Phrenologists  say  (we  think  with  reason)  that  the  atmosphere  of  the  repub- 
lican principles  and  leveling  tendencies  of  this  country,  is  unfavorable  to  the 
due  development  of  Veneration.  A  people  whose  pohtical  and  social  insti- 
tutions constantly  teach  them  that  independence  is  their  chief  glory,  and 
that  subordination  is  disgrace,  will  naturally  have  but  a  stinted  growth  of  - 
reverence  toward  man ;  and  it  would  be  strange  if  the  deficiency  did  not 
extend,  in  some  degree,  to  the  kindred  and  almost  identical  sentmient  of 
reverence  toward  God.  Bigoted  democrats  certainly  can  have  but  little 
B3rmpathy  with  the  pruiciples  of  that  kingdom  described  and  predicted  by 
the  Bible,  in  which  one  man  (viz.,  Jesus  Christ)  is  appointed,  not  by  the 
people,  but  by  God,  the  absolute  monarch  of  all ;  and  claims  as  his  first 
tribute  from  all  his  subjects,  unconditional  loyalty  and  subordination. 

The  divisions  of  Protestant  Christendom  have  generated  another  influence, 
tenduig  especially  to  weaken  reverence  for  the  Bible.  As  sect  after  sect  has 
arisen,  conflicting  commentaries  have  been  multiplied,  until  men  have  accus- 
tomed themselves  to  regard  the  Bible,  not  as  an  authoritative  judge  of  con- 
troversy, but  as  a  pliable  witness  that  may  be  brought  by  a  skillful  lawyer  to 
favor  any  side  of  any  question.  Such  a  witness  cannot  be  held  in  much  re- 
spect. 

Such  were  the  predisposing  influences  in  operation,  when  the  enthusiasm 
of  reform  which  has  characterized  the  last  sixteen  years,  commenced  *its  ca- 
reer.   In  the  Temperance  cause,  benevolence  first  essayed  the  usurping 
2 


W  tifViDBLitX  AMO^fQ  ilEf'OIlMEllS'. 

J)rocc53,  by  wliich  veneration  has  since  been  subverted.  In  hiirlrying'  on  ih^ 
triumphs  of  total  abstinence,  it  was  found  necessary  to  remove  certain  ob^ 
structions  placed  in  the  way  by  the  Bible.  These  obstructions  might  have 
been  removed  without  injiny  to'  the  Bible,  if  the  leaders  in  the  cause  had 
choseti  to  defend  total  abstinence  as  an  expedient,  not  of  intrinsic  and  per- 
manent cbligation,  but  adapted  to  the  exigency  of  the  times,  and  adopted  on 
the  principle  which  justifies  fastmg,  and  which  Paul  sanctioned  when  he  said, 
*  If  meat  make  ray  brother  to  offend,  I  will  not  eat  meat  w  bile  the  world 
standoth.'  Birt  to  press  the  BiMe  into  the  service  of  total  abstinence,  by 
denying  that  the  writers  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  with  Jesus  Christ 
at  their  head,  countenanced  the  drinking  of  wine ;  or  by  assei-ting  that  Bible 
wines  were  not  intoxicating,  m  a  violence  which  no  man,  under  the  influence 
of  due  respect  for  the  Bible,  w^ould  undertake.  The  language  of  such  art 
attempt  is — '  The  Bible  is  too  sacred  to  be  contradicted  ;  but  we  will  evade 
its  force  by  dexterous  colnmentary.^  Yet  this  attempt  was  made  ;  and  that 
too,  by  such  men  as  Stuart,  Beecher,  and  Hewitt.  The  '  mighty  men'  of 
the  popular  churches  planted  the  noxious  genn,  which,  in  the  apostate  and 
blaspheming  ultraists  of  later  time^f,  has  'gone  to  seed.^ 

Next  came  Anti-slavery.  The  nature  of  this  enterprise,  harmonizing  and 
co-opetating  with  the  liberty-spirit  of  our  political  institutions,  inevitably  in- 
creased the  atmospheric  predisposition  to  me'rge  veneration  in  benevolence. 
It  was  soon  found  in  this  as  in  the  Temperance  cause,  that  the  Bible  stood 
hi  the  way  of  the  extreme  ttltraism^  sugge^ed  by  enthusiastic  zeal.  The 
doctrine  that  slave-holding  is  neceggarily  sinful,  and  that  immediate  abolition 
B  in  all  cases  a  matter  of  religious  obligation,  coitld  not  be  maintained  without 
forcing  a  new  construction  on  many  things  in  the  writings  of  Moses  and  Paul. 
Theodore  D.  Weld  had  learned  in  the  Temperance  service  the  importance 
of  wresting  the  Bible  out  of  the  hands  of  the  adversaries  of  reform.  With 
lawyer-Hke  shrewdness,  in  his  '  Bible  Argumelit'  against  slavery  he  cross^ 
questioned  the  opposing  witness,  till  he  apparently  made  that  witness  his 
Own.  As  it  was  the  favorite  position  of  Temperance  men  that  Bible-wines 
tverd  not  intoxicating,  so  Weld  boldly  averred  and  plausibly  proved  that 
!Bible-fllayery  was  not  slavery.  The  argument  w^as  as  good  in  one  case  as  in 
the  other ;  and  no  better.  Thus  the  Bible  was  the  second  time  placed  oti 
the  rack  of  reform,  and  benevolence  prevailed  over  veneration. 

*  Woman's  Rights'  was  the  next  topic  of  agitation.  In  both  the  previous 
cases,  the  language  of  the  Bible  adverse  to  the  views  of  the  reformers,  had 
been  bo  far  dubious,  as  to  admit  of  favorable  construction  ;  and  veneration 
had  not  yet  been  so  prostrated,  a^  to  permit  a  direct  attack.  The  collisioJi 
was  oblique  ;  and  the  Bible,  though  dishonored,  was  not  mutilated.  But  now 
the  time  had  come  for  open  hostilities.  Many  influences  conspired  to  bring 
on  this  issue*  A  new  baptism  of  the  spirit  of  irreverence  had  come  upon 
the  reformers,  by  the  accession  to  their  ranks  of  those  Perfectionists  who  had 
learned  from  T.  R.  Gates  to  blaspheme  Paul.  The  Quaker,  Unitarian,  Uni- 
versalist  and  Transcendental  elements  in  the  spiritual  compound  engaged  in 
the  reforming  enterprises,  had  begun  to  prevail  against  the  more  conserva- 
tivo  influencoa  of  orthodoxy :  and  the  '  Evangelicals'  were  preparing  to  with- 


INFIDELITY  AMONG  REFORMERS.  19 

draw.  Above  all  it  was  manifest,  that  tke  theory  of  Woman's  Rights  which 
^affirmed  the  entire  equality  of  the  sexes,  and  repudiated  all  subordination  of 
woman  to  man,  was  in  point-blank  antagonism  to  tlie  testimony  of  Paul. — 
There  was  no  possibility  of  compromise  or  evasion.  In  tliis  crisis  the  Misses 
Grimke,  who  led  the  van  of  the  Woman's  Rights  reform,  declared  indepen- 
dence of  the  authority  of  Paul.  Thus  a  third  public  injury  was  inflicted  on 
the  Bible  by  the  spirit  of  reform.  And  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  as  T,  D. 
Weld  was  accessory  to  the  first,  and  the  principal  actor  in  the  second,  «o  he 
made  himself  accessory  to  the  third,  by  publicly  connecting  himself — and 
that,  too,  in  avowed  allegiance  to  the  theory  of  the  equality  of  the  sexes — 
with  Angelina  Grimke. 

.  Finally,  Non-resistance  became  the  prominent  subject  of  hen«volent  ^en- 
thusiasm. And  once  more  the  Bible  stood  in  the  way.  The  wars  of  Moses, 
and  much  of  the  morality  of  the  Old  Testament,  seemed  hideously  repugnant 
to  the  ultra  peace-principles.  Some  were  prudent  and  patient  enough  to  for- 
bear railing,  and  seek  a  reconciliation  of  the  morality  of  the  Old  Testament 
with  that  of  the  New,  But  others  had  chafed  against  the  Bible  in  the  previ- 
ous reforms,  till  they  were  irritated,  and  veneration  gave  place  to  oombative- 
ness.  When  the  angel  of  the  Lord  with  a  drawn  sword  had  confronted  Balaam 
three  times,  and  his  ass  had  crushed  his  foot  against  the  wall,  the  prophet** 
anger  was  kindled.  Moses  was  the  object  of  hostility  in  this  reform,  as  Paul 
had  been  in  its  predecessor.  Thus  the  bulwarks  of  the  Old  ^nd  New  Testa- 
ments were  assailed. 

The  last  of  the  series  of  Radical  Conventions  which  w^re  held  in  Boston  ia 
1841 — 2,  gave  utterance  to  the  growing  spiiit  of  infideUty.  The  attempt 
was  made  to  place  the  Bible  in  the  same  category  mth  the  Sabbath,  Church, 
and  Ministry ;  and  although  the  movement  was  apparently  a  failure,  many 
were  emboldened  in  their  irreverence.  Since  then,  a  considerable  class  have 
gradually  receded  from  their  allegiance  to  the  Bible,  until  they  now  lack 
little  or  nothing  of  the  ordinary  characteristics  of  downright  infidehty. 

We  believe  this  is  a  true  account  of  the  disorder  now  prevailing  among 
ultraists ;  and  we  present  It  with  unceremonious  and  perhaps  offensive  plain- 
ness ;  not  because  we  are  opposed  to  the  objects  of  the  several  reforms  con- 
cerned— for  all  our  predilections  are  in  their  favor ;  nor  because  we  bear  any 
malice  against  such  men  as  T.  D.  Weld — for  we  have  long  been  accustomed 
to  regard  him  with  respect,  and  even  affection ;  but  because  we  reverence 
God  more  than  all  ultraisms  and  ultraists  together,  and  are  determined,  at 
all  hazards,  so  far  as  in  us  lies,  to  expose  the  machinations  of  the  devil  agaijist 
the  Bible, 


^ii^^-^s; 


§  3.  THE  MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  UNBELIEF. 

The  following  remark,  taken  from  an  article  which  was  published  in  the 
Herald  of  Freedom  in  1843,  (N.  P.  Rogers,  editor,)  presents  one  of  thd 
most  popular  apologies  current  among  unbeHevers  : — 

•'The  Clergy  charg-e  infidelity  upon  abolitionists.  I,  for  one,  reply  that  I  regard  it  as 
no  accusation.  If  it  were  true,  it  is  not  any  lliinif  that  calls  for  defense,  or  needs  any 
vindication.  It  is  neither  a  fault  nor  a  virtue,  in  itself.  Belief  or  disbelief  are,  of  course, 
mere  results  of  evidence,  or  of  the  lack  of  it." 

The  avowal  of  a  sentiment  so  gi'ossly  unscriptural,  and  awfi-scriptural,  as 
that  contained  in  the  sentences  which  we  have  italicized,  is  good  evidence 
that  the  writer  is  actually  an  infidel  of  the  most  foolish  sort.  His  doctrine, 
if  it  w^ere  true,  would  utterly  stultify  and  condemn  Jesus  Chiist.  If  '  belief 
or  disbelief  are  mere  results  of  evidence,  or  of  the  lack  of  it,'  having  no 
moral  meiit  or  demerit,  Christ  miserably  abused  his  disciples  when  he  '  tip- 
braided  them  with  their  unbelief  and  hardness  of  heart,  because  they  believed 
not  them  which  had  seen  him  after  he  was  risen.''  Mark  16:  14.  According 
to  Mr.  Rogers,  they  might  justly  have  repelled  these  upbraidings,  and  as- 
gerted  their  innocence,  on  the  ground  that  their  disbelief  of  the  report  of 
Christ's  resurrection  was  an  inevitable  misfortune — the  '  mere  result  of  the 
lack  of  evidence  !'  Nothing  in  all  the  records  of  the  evangehsts  stands  out 
in  bolder  prominence,  than  the  truth  that  Christ  treated  unbelief  as  the  worst 
of  moral  abominations,  and  offered  all  the  premiums  of  his  administration  in 
this  world  and  the  world  to  come  to  those  who  should  believe  in  his  mission 
and  doctrine.  '  Go  ye  (said  he  to  his  disciples)  into  all  the  world,  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature  :  he  that  believeth  [that  gospel]  shall  be  saved ; 
hut  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.''  Mark  16:  15,  16.  Here  is  sal- 
vation and  damnation  suspended  on  acts  of  the  mind,  which  Mr.  Rogers  says 
are  neither  '  faults  nor  virtues,'  but  mere  mechanical  effects  of  evidence,  or 
the  lack  of  it !  It  is  needless  to  multiply  citations.  Every  one  who  is  fa- 
miliar "with  the  Bible  can  see  without  much  study,  that  Mr.  Rogers'  principle 
aims  a  blow  at  the  heart  of  Christianity.  We  are  safe  in  assuming  that  he 
is  an  infidel  in  the  worst  sense  of  the  Avord.  Having  then  to  deal  with  one 
who  does  not  receive  the  Bible  as  a  judge  of  controversy,  but  '  tramples  it 
under  his  feet'  (as  he  says  in  another  article  of  the  same  paper)  if  it  crosses 
his  notions  of  right  and  wrong,  we  will  leave  the  Bible  argument,  and  try 
the  dogma  which  he  has  propounded,  in  the  court  of  common  sense. 

Mr.  Rogers'  position  obviously  is,  that  praise  and  blame  attach  only  to  acts 
that  are  voluntary^  and  that  belief  and  disbelief  are  involuntary — the  '  meke 
results  of  evidence  or  of  the  lack  of  it,'  and  of  course,  are  not  deserving  of 
praise  or  blame.  On  the  other  hand,  our  position  is,  that  behef  and  disbeUef 
are,  in  many  cases,  voluntary.  We  do  not  say  that  there  are  not  cases  in 
which  evidence  compels  belief.  In  the  clear  simpUcity  of  mathematics,  or 
in  the  spiritual  brightness  of  the  eternal  world,  there  may  be  such  a  thing  as 
involuntary  belief.     But  in  such  a  world  as  this,  where  evidence  is  often 


MORAL  CIIAEACTER  OF  UNBELIEF.  ^1^.       21 

deficient,  or  apparently  contradictory,  and  especially  in  subjects  so  deep,  and 
to  worldly  eyes  so  cloudy,  as  those  of  which  the  Bible  treats,  men  have  an 
opportunity,  nay,  are  compelled  to  exercise  their  wills  in  forming  their  opin- 
ions. 

We  will  advert  particularly  to  only  one  of  the  many  ways  in  which  volition 
is  concerned  in  belief  and  disbelief.  Evidence  tliat  is  actually  conclusive, 
does  not  necessarily  insure  that  the  conclusion  will  he  draum  in  the  mind  of 
him  to  whom  that  evidence  is  presented.  A  man  may  take  two  steps  in  a 
sound  syllogism,  and  yet  refuse  to  take  the  third.  For  example,  suppose  it 
is  demonstrated  to  a  slaveholder,  first,  that  '  all  men  are  created  free  and 
equal ;'  and  secondly,  that  negroes  are  men ;  the  necessary  conclusion  from 
these  premises,  if  any  conclusion  is  draw7i^  is,  that  negroes  are  of  right 
free  and  equal  with  the  Avhites.  But  the  drawing  of  this  conclusion  is  an 
act  of  the  mind,  separate  from  and  independent  of  the  perception  of  the 
premises  on  which  it  is  founded,  and  the  slaveholder  has  the  power  to  stop 
the  action  of  his  mind  even  at  the  point  where  the  evidence  is  complete  and 
admitted,  and  turn  from  that  evidence  to  some  more  agreeable  subject,  with- 
out ever  drawing  the  conclusion.  In  such  a  case  (and  ten  thousand  such 
cases  occur  daily)  the  unbelief  of  the  man  in  respect  to  the  rightful  freedom 
and  equality  of  negroes  will  remain — not  for  lack  of  evidence,  but  because 
he  voluntarihj  refused  to  look  beyond  the  evidence  to  the  truth  evinced. — 
The  general  principle  which  we  affirm,  is,  that  in  all  cases  Avhere  truth  is 
reached,  not  by  instantaneous  clairvoyance,  but  by  a  seiies  of  steps,  man  has 
the  power  of  arresting  his  mind  at  any  stage  of  the  process ;  and  belief  is  not 
the  mere  inevitable  result  of  evidence  perceived,  but  depends  on  a  continuity 
of  thought  which  he  has  power  to  choose  or  refuse.  The  lack  of  this  conti- 
nuity of  thought,  which  we  may  call  unfaithfulness  of  mind,  is  a  very  gen- 
eral cause  of  unbelief  in  respect  to  the  advanced  truths  which  are  propounded 
from  time  to  time  in  science,  philanthropy  and  religion.  Multitudes  habit- 
ually act  as  a  judge  would  do,  who,  after  hearing  the  evidence  in  a  suit,  should 
dismiss  the  case  without  judgment. 

Universal  consciousness  is  an  unanswerable  witness  to  the  fact,  that  the 
transition  from  evidence  to  conclusion — '  the  making  up  of  the  mind' — in  a 
word,  the  act  of  believing,  is  in  many  cases  heroically  voluntary.  When 
apparent  self-interest  clashes  with  the  conclusion  to  be  formed,  however  per- 
emptory may  be  the  evidence,  it  requires  effort,  self-denial,  courage  to  be- 
lieve. No  man  has  ever  made  any  valuable  progress  in  wisdom,  who  has 
not  again  and  again  summoned  all  the  energies  of  his  soul  to  the  work  of 
decisive  judgment  upon  evidence.  And  when  a  conclusion  has  been  once 
attained  by  the  clearest  demonstration,  if  it  is  unfamiliar  and  offensive,  or 
if  the  evidence  of  it  is  concatenated,  and  not  easily  perceivable,  every  body 
knows  that  it  costs  many  a  struggle  of  the  will  to  keep  it  in  the  mind,  and 
make  it  a  permanent  element  of  thought  and  action. 

The  Bible  is  not  alone  in  making  belief  and  unbehef  the  criterion  of  char* 
acter  and  destiny.  The  grand  difference  between  man  and  man  in  the  esti- 
mation of  human  society,  lies  in  the  different  degrees  of  wisdom  in  worldly 
matters  which  each  possesses ;  and  wisdom  is  the  result  of  faithfully  and 


v-"' 


f 


tKU 


22  HORAL  CHARACTER  OF  UNBELIEF.  t^ 

heroically  pursuing  evidence  to  its  conclusions :  indeed,  it  is  but  another 
name  for  the  belief  of  truth.  Common  sense,  the  world  over,  gives  its  high- 
■est  praise  and  rewards  to  mental  faithfulness,  and  awards  blame  and  con- 
tempt to  mental  cowardice  and  imbecility.  And  in  this  matter  abolitionists 
are  by  no  means  behind  the  rest  of  the  world.  They  have  a  creed, — ^not 
religious,  but  social, — a  creed  on  the  subject  of  slavery ;  and  there  is  not  a 
church  or  clergy  in  the  world  who  blame  unbehef  and  persecute  heresy  (with 
the  tongue  and  pen)  more  unsparingly  than  the  church  and  clergy  of  aboli- 
tionism. 

Does  N.  P.  Rogers  account  the  imperviousness  of  the  South  to  antislavery 
sentiments,  its  unbelief  in  respect  to  the  expediency  of  immediate  abolition, 
the  'mere  result  of  the  lack  of  evidence'?  Or  does  he  think  there  is  no 
^  fault'  in  the  belief  of  the  popular  clergy  that  he  and  his  compeers  are  evil 
doers  ?     If  so,  his  treatment  of  them  strangely  belies  his  opinions. 

We  allude  thus  to  abohtionists,  not  in  the  way  of  reproach,  but  that  we 
may  carry  our  appeal  against  the  dogma  of  Mr.  Rogers  in  regard  to  the  in- 
different nature  of  belief  and  unbelief,  into  his  and  their  own  consciousness. 
The  truth  is,  when  a  man  is  certain  that  he  has  laid  hold  of  a  new  and  im- 
portant principle  in  any  department  of  truth,  it  is  right  and  good  that  he 
should  make  it  a  part  of  his  '  creed,'  and  endeavor  to  promulgate  it ;  and 
when  he  has  established  his  position  by  substantial  proof  in  the  sight  of  men, 
he  has  a  right  to  their  belief,  and  may  justly  censure  them  if  they  believe 
not.  Abolitionists  know  that  there  is  something  more  and  worse  than  the 
'*mere  lack  of  evidence'  at  the  bottom  of  Southern  unbelief;  and  they  are 
right  in  blaming  it.  Health  Reformers,  Phrenologists,  Neurologists,  the 
advocates  of  every  new  system  of  truth,  hnow  that  there  is  something  wrong 
in  the  cold  repellant  obtuseness  with  which  the  world  meets  their  efforts  to 
enlighten  it.  So  also,  as  believers  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible,  and  of 
the  doctrines  which  it  teaches,  we  hnow  (Mr.  Rogers'  dictum  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding)  that  infidelity  is  the  result  of  something  more  and 
worse  than  *  mere  lack  of  evidence' — that  there  is  voluntary  mental  unfaith- 
fulness, moral  perverseness  of  the  most  radical  and  pernicious  kind,  where 
the  Son  of  God  is  denied. 

The  gospel  of  Jesus  Ohrist  is  peculiarly  a  system  of  central  truth.  It  is 
the  constitution  of  that  universal  government  in  which  the  principles  of  all 
other  systems,  whether  scientific  or  moral,  are  but  by-laws.  It  relates  to 
the  soul  and  to  eternal  existence.  It  is  properly  called  the  truth,  in  dis- 
tinction from  mere  truth  in  general.  Such  a  system  ought  to  be  investigated 
first  of  all,  and  with  principal  interest  and  perseverance  by  every  rational 
being.  Whoever  has  thus  investigated  it,  has  found  evidence  enough  of  its 
truthfulness  and  divinity ;  and  to  such  a  person,  the  fact  that  a  man  is  an 
infidel,  is  sufficient  proof  that  he  is  not  a  central  thinker,  not  a  constitivtional 
patriot — that  he  has  never  turned  his  mind  with  steady,*  persevering  gaze, 
toward  the  spiritual,  the  infinite,  the  eternal.  In  other  words,  believers 
know  that  infidelity  is  the  offspring  and  evidence  of  superficiality.  An  infidel 
teacher  is  a  quack  in  matters  of  infinite  moment ;  of  course  he  is  infinitely 
mischievous.      31  ^ro  unavoidable  ignorance  is  a  misfortune;   but  superfi- 


MOKAt  CHARACTBR  OP  UNBELIEF. 


^^ 


Ciality  and  quackery  are  universally  condemned  as  voluntary  oifensesv 
If  we  go  back  of  supei-ficiality,  we  find  all  its  antecedents  of  a  voluntary^ 
blamable  nature.  Mental  laziness  is  a  very  common  cause  of  superficial 
thinking.  It  is  easier  to  employ  the  mind  about  matters  on  the  surface  of 
existence,  and  give  up  one's  self  to  impressions  from  things  visible,  than  to 
seek  wisdom  in  the  far  depths  of  spiritual,  central  truth.  Sensualky  is  an- 
other cause  of  superficiality.  The  same  inversion  of  right  order  which  lead* 
men  to  attend  more  to  the  enjoyments  of  their  bodies  than  of  their  souls, 
disposes  them  also  to  employ  their  thoughts  about  things  physical  rather  than 
things  spiritual ;  and  propels  them  as  by  centrifugal  force,  evermore  farther 
and  farther  from  the  internal  light  of  the  universe  toward  the  darkness  of 
mere  materialism.  Worldliness,  which  is  only  a  wiser  kind  of  sensuality, 
i«,  we  may  safely  say,  always  in  some  form  at  the  bottom  of  that  inattention 
and  aversion  to  things  spiritual  and  infinite,  which  is  the  ground  of  all  infi- 
delity. '  The  cares  of  this  world,  and  the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  and  the 
lusts  of  other  things,  entering  in,  choke  the  \rord.'  A  mind  full  of  worldly 
business  of  any  kind  has  no  time,  and  can  have  no  taste  for  the  investigation 
of  central  truth  ;  and  the  most  convenient  refuge  for  it,  is  infidelity. 

These  remarks  may  be  applied  to  a  larger  class  than  that  of  avowed  infi- 
dels. A  lazy-minded,  sensual,  worldly  '  Christian,'  will  as  certainly  be  su- 
perficial, and  centrifugal  in  his  habits  of  mind,  as  the  open  blasphemer  of 
the  Bible.  He  has  within  him  all  the  essential  elements  of  infidelity,  and  is 
actually  an  mfidel  with  reference  to  the  internal  truths  of  the  Bible  ;  thougla 
not  with  reference  to  the  Bible  itself.  We  might  properly  extend  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  infidel  to  all  who  turn  away  from  the  spiritual  knowledge  of 
God  and  his  Son;  and  then  divide  them  into  two  classes — the  pro-Bible  and 
the  anti-Bible  infidels.  The  gi-oundAvork  of  character  is  the  same  in  both  ; 
viz.,  unfaithfulness  and  Superficiality  of  mind,  originating  in  laziness,  sensu- 
ality and  worldliness. 

The  infidelity  which  has  infested  abolition  and  other  kindred  reforms,  can 
be  traced  beyond  'mere  lack  of  evidence.'  Though  it  is  apparently  pecu- 
liar, we  have  no  hesitation  in  attributing  it  to  the  same  general  causes,  as  in 
other  cases.  If  the  charge  of  laziness  and  sensuality,  as  the  ground  of  su- 
perficiality of  mind,  may  be  denied,  with  reference  to  the  Reformers,  still 
We  affirm  that  they  are  drawn  away  from  central  truth  by  worldliness. — 
Their  worldliness,  it  is  true,  is  of  a  peculiar— we  might  say  of  a  very  subli- 
mated sort.  It  is  not  the  *  deceitfulness  of  riches,'  nor  the  '  cares  of  this 
world,'  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  expression,  which  chokes  the  word  in  them ; 
but  it  is  the  '  lust  of  other  things'  than  the  spiritual  knowledge  of  God, 
The  objects  which  they  have  set  their  hearts  upon,  viz.,  the  abolition  of 
slavery  and  war,  physical  and  social  reform,  are  as  truly  worldly  objects  as 
Wealth  or  political  power.  They  relate  primarily  to  the  bodies  and  temporal 
interests  of  men.  The  fact  that  they  are  somewhat  nobler  objects  than  those 
which  ordinary  worldhngs  seek,  cannot  redeem  them  from  the  charge  we 
bring  against  them.  They  are  not  within  the  circle  of  central,  constitutional 
truth.  They  are  not  the  leading  objects  of  the  Bible.  A  man  may  seek 
them  all  without  ever  thinkmg  of  God,  or  of  his  Son,  of  the  spiritual  world, 


24  HARMONY  OF  MOSES   AND   CHRIST.  ^. 

or  of  eternity.  [Moreover  thoy  are  objects  which,  when  pursued  In  a  spirit 
of  ultraism,  sucli  as  abounds  among  modern  reformers,  lead  naturally  and 
almost  necessarily  to  irritatin<;  collisions  with  the  Bible,  resulting  in  gTadual 
abandonment  of  it,  and  finall  y^  in  enmity  against  it.  The  infidelity  or  semi- 
infidelity  of  modern  reformei*s,  as  we  have  shown  in  the  preceding  article, 
is  the  result  of  lustful  benevokiuce,  the  love  of  liberty  as  the  summum  honumy 
and  lack  of  veneration, — not  of  the  '  mere  lack  of  evidence.* 


§  4.    THE  HARMONY  OF  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 

The  most  plausible  of  all  the  usual  allegations  against  the  Bible,  is,  that 
the  New  Testament  contradicts  the  Old.  The  ultra-benevolent  semi-infidels 
are  fond  of  arraj^ng  the  principles  of  Christ  against  those  of  Moses.  We 
will  examine  one  of  the  worst  of  the  stumbling  blocks  thus  laid  in  the  way  of 
Bible-believers,  as  a  specimen  of  the  whole. 

Moses  said — "  If  men  strive,  and  hurt  a  woman  with  child,  so  that  her  fruit  depart 
from  her;  and  yet  no  mischief  follow  ;  he  shall  he  surely  punished,  according-  as  tlie 
woman's  husband  shall  lay  upon  him  ;  and  he  shall  pay  as  the  judges  determine.  And 
if  any  mischief  follow,  then  thou  shalt  give  life  for  life,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth, 
hand  for  hand,  foot  for  foot,  burning  for  burning,  wound  for  wound,  strips  for  stripe." 
Exodus  21:  22-25. 

Christ  said — "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said.  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth 
for  a  tooth  :  but  I  say  unto  you,  that  ye  resist  not  evil ;  but  whosoever  shall  smite  thee 
on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also.  And  if  any  man  will  sue  thee  at  the 
law,  and  take  away  thy  coat,   let  him  have  thy  cloak  also."  Matt.  5:  38-40. 

The  scorner  says  that  in  one  of  these  passages  Jesus  Christ  forbade  what 
Moses  commanded  in  the  other,  and  thereby  proved  his  infidelity  to  a  portion 
of  the  Bible  and  showed  conclusively  that  he  did  not  consider  it  the  word  of 
-God,     Let  us  see  if  this  is  true. 

1.  The  mere  language  which  Christ  uses  in  substituting  his  rule  for  Moses' 
in  this  case,  indicates  no  condemnation  or  disrespect  of  Moses'  rule.  For  in 
the  context  immediately  preceding  he  uses  the  same  forai  of  speech  in  regard 
to  several  precepts  of  the  decalogue : — '  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  by 
them  of  old  time.  Thou  shalt  not  kill,'  &c.  Ver.  21.  '  Ye  have  heard  that 
it  was  said  by  them  of  old  time,  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,'  &c.  Ver.  27. 
No  one  will  argue  against  the  righteousness  or  the  divinity  of  the  Mosaic 
precepts  against  murder  and  adultery,  because  Christ  deemed  them  insuffi- 
cient for  the  purposes  of  his  spiritual  kingdom,  and  substituted  other  rules 
in  their  place.  He  supplanted  them,  not  because  they  were  evil  in  them- 
:8elves,  but  because  the  nature  of  his  dispensation  called  for  larger  principles, 
^he  same  may  be  said  of  his  dealing  with  Exodus  21:  24,  for  aught  that 
appears  in  his  language  to  the  contrary. 

2.  Christ  constantly  taught  that  Grod's  ultimate  reckoning  with  men  will 
proceed  according  to  Moses'  rule — 'An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a 
tooth.'    Let  us  glance  at  som'B  of  his  insti-uctions  on  this  point.      '  The  Son 


HARMONY  OF  MOSES  AND  CHRIST.  25 

of  man  ghall  come  m  the  glory  of  his  Father,  with  hig  angels,  and  tTien  he 
shall  reward  every  man  according  to  Ms  worJcs.^  Matt.  16:  27.  "What  is 
here  meant  bj  '  rewarding  every  man  according  to  Ids  works,'  may  be  seen 
by  consulting  such  passages  as  Matt.  13:  41 — 43,  25:  31 — 46.  The  rule 
of  judgment  according  to  these  passages,  is  that  they  who  work  evil  shall  be 
rewarded  with  destruction ;  and  that  is  equivalent  to  the  rule  of  Moses.  In 
the  parable  of  the  cruel  creditor,  (Matt.  18:  23 — 35,)  the  circumstances 
stated  are  these  :  A  king,  on  the  entreaty  of  his  servant,  forgave  him  his 
debt.  The  servant,  having  an  account  against  a  fellow  servant  in  similar 
circumstances,  would  not  forgive  him,  but  cast  him  into  prison.  The  king, 
being  informed  of  the  fact,  called  the  oppressor  to  account,  and  dehvered 
him  to  the  tormentors.  Thereupon  Christ  says,  'So  likewise  shall  my  heav- 
enly Father  do  also  unto  you^  if  ye  from  your  hearts  forgive  not  every  one 
his  brother  their  trespasses  ;'  which  is  as  much  as  to  say,  they  that  show  no 
mercy  shall  have  no  mercy,  but  shall  be  dealt  with  according  to  the  rule — 
'An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth.  Even  in  the  sermon  on  the 
mount — the  very  discourse  in  which  the  Mosaic  rule  of  retribution  is  dis- 
placed,— Christ  points  his  disciples  forward  to  a  time  when  that  rule  shall  be 
enforced.  'With  what  judgment  ye  judge  ^^  he  say&,  'ye  shall  he  judged;- 
and  with  what  ineasure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  again.^  Matt. 
7:  2.  This  is  as  strong  as  if  he  had  said  in  so  many  words — ^God  will  reckon 
with  you  at  last  by  Moses'  rule.  An  eye  for  an  eye  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth.' 
It  appears  therefore  that  if  there  is  any  inherent  wmng  in  the  principle  of 
exact  retribution,  Christ  is  as  deeply  imphcated  in  the  guilt  of  approving 
and  promulgating  it  as  Moses,  and  is  moreover  guilty  of  fastening  the  wrong 
upon  God.  We  have  then,  not  merely  Christ  pitted  agamst  Moses,  but 
Christ  against  Christ.  We  need  not  go  out  of  the  book  of  Matthew — not 
even  out  of  the  sermon  on  the  mount — to  convict  the  Bible  of  self-antagonism, 
if  there  is  any  real  antagonism  between  Matthew  5:  38 — 40  and  Exodus  21: 
22 — 25.     This  is  carrying  the  matter  too  far. 

3.  The  simple  truth  about  the  matter  is,  that  the  relation  between  Moses' 
rule  and  Christ's,  is  Just  the  relation  between  justice  and  mercy,  and  both 
are  good  and  worthy  of  God,  though  they  are  appropriate  to  different  times 
and  different  circumstances.  The  rule — 'An  eye  for  an  eye  and  a  tooth  for 
a  tooth' — is  the  rule  of  exact  justice.  Common  sense  approves  of  it.  It  is 
the  counterpart  of  the  golden  rule — '  Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should 
do  unto  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them.'  The  selfish  passions  of  individuals 
ought  not  to  be  trusted  with  the  administration  of  such  a  rule  ;  and  accord- 
ingly it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  Moses  enacted  it,  not  as  a  principle  of 
private  action,  but  as  the  law  to  be  administered  in  courts  of  justice,  '  as  the 
judges  shall  determine  ;'  and  the  same  rule,  in  different  forms,  governs  courts 
of  justice  in  all  civilized  lands.  It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Christ,  if  he 
had  been  legislating  as  Moses  was,  for  the  affairs  of  a  visible  kingdom,  would 
not  have  made  the  essence  of  Moses'  rule  the  basis  of  the  administration  of 
justice  between  man  and  man.  Rather  it  is  certain  that  he  would  have  done 
so,  since,  as  we  have  seen,  he  declared  that  rule  to  be  the  ultimate  measure 
of  awards  in  God's  eternal  kingdom.  But  he  gave  his  disciples  another  rule, 
3 


M  HARMONTf  OP  M0SB9  A5fl>  CHRIST*/ 

for  reasons  'which  grew  out  of  the  nature  of  his  mission  as  an  agent  not  of 
justice  but  of  mercy.  Previous  to  judgment  God  interposes  a  dispensation 
of  forbearance  and  forgiveness.  The  rule  of  justice  is  suspended  ;  God 
waves  his  rights,  and  returns  good  for  e^^l,  so  long  a&  there  is  hope  of  saving 
men.  Christ  appeared  in  the  world  as  the  agent  of  this  intei-mediate  dispen- 
sation, and  called  on  his  followers  to  co-operate  with  him,  by  enlarging  their 
hearts  beyond  the  rule  of  justice,  to  tho  fulness  of  the  measure  of  God's 
mercy,  who  for  tho  present  '  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the 
good,  and  sonde th  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust.'  In  all  this  there  was 
no  condemnation  of  the  rule  of  justice.  It  Was  perfectly  consistent  with 
Christ's  position  to  affirm  (as  he  virtually  did  affirm  by  his  endorsement  of 
the  law  and  the  prophets  in  Matt.  5:  17)  that  Moses  gave  that  rule  by  divhie 
authority,  for  he  expressly  declared  it  to  be  a  rule  which  God  would  even 
yell  enforce  in  its  proper  time.  He  only  taught  his  disciples  that  the  rule  of 
mercy  was  better  for  the  time  then  present— i.  e.,  more  appropriate  to  his 
and  their  mission  of  love.  Eoth  rules  were  good.  The  same  God  might  use- 
both.  Suppose  A  owes  B  a  just  debt,  which  he  is  able  to  pay.  B  may  ex- 
act the  payment  of  that  debt  in  perfect  righteousness-  In  that  case  he  acts 
by  the  rule  of  justice.  On  the  other  hand  he  may  in  perfect  righteousness 
forgire  the  debt.  In  that  case  he  acts  by  the  rule  of  mercy.  Under  certain- 
circumstances  it  might  be  best  that  he  should  exact  payment,  and  under 
others  that  he  should  forgive  ;•  and  his  acting  by  a  different  rule  in  different 
cases  would  be  no  infraction  of  his  consistency  or  uprightness.  Indeed  in 
the  parable  of  the  cruel  debtor  we  have  a  complete  illustration  of  God's  ad- 
ministration of  both  rules.  The  king  first  forgives  the  servant  his  debt,  ac- 
cording to  the  rule  of  mercy^  Afterward^  on  finduig  him  to  be  unforgiving 
toward  his  fellow  servant,  he  delivers  him  to  the  tormentors  '  till  he  should 
pay  all  that  was  due  unto  him.'  Thus  he  enforces  the  rule  of  justice.  'So 
likewise,^  says  Christ,  *  shall  my  heavenly  Father  do  unto  you.''  There  is 
no  inconsistency  between  the  different  proceedings  in  this  case  ;  and  there  is 
no  more  inconsistency  between  tlie  rule  of  Moses  and  that  of  Christ.  God 
commissioned  Moses  to  institute  a  municipal  law,  which  contained  the  ele- 
monts,  and  was  a  miniature,  of  the  rule  of  eternal  judgment.  He  sent  Christ 
into  tlie  world  to  administer  the  fulness  of  his  intermediate  mercy.  The  pre- 
cepts of  both,  in  their  appropriate  times  and  circumstances,  were  entirely 
consistent  with  each  other.  The  allegation  of  Christ's  opposition  to  Moses 
in  this  case,  and  indeed  most  of  the  plausibihties  of  Universalism,  Non- 
resistance,  and  semi-infidelities  in  general,  emanate  from  that  shallowness 
and  confusion  of  mind,  which  disallows  altogether  the  principle  of  divine 
justice,  and  raises  an  entire  and  immutable  theory  of  morality  for  God  and 
man  on  tho  sole  foundation  of  divine  mercy^ 


t;^fff:'^'^'^^^■■  ('v  <- ''H^i^' 


§  5.    THE  ULTIMATE  GROUND  OF  FAITH. 

There  are  several  kinds  of  belief,  which  may  be  distinguished  thus: — 

1.  There  is  a  belief  of  the  imagination.  When  a  person  believes  his  own 
thoughts  Avithout  reference  to  their  agreement  with  external  objects,  his  belief 
is  imaginative.  The  romance-writer  produces  thoughts  that  have  no  founda- 
tion in  external  facts.  Every  person  has  the  faculty  of  doing  the  same  thing 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent.  Ordinarily  imaginative  thoughts  are  treated  as 
such,  and  iK)t  believed  to  be  true.  But  sometimes  men  suffer  the  distinction 
between  imaginative  and  true  thoughts  to  be  confounded  in  their  minds,  and 
come  to  believe  whatever  they  think,  without  comparing  their  thoughts  with 
objective  reaUties.  Devoted  novel-readers  not  unfrequently  fall  into  this 
confusion  of  mind ;    and  it  is  the   special   distinction   of  insane   persons. 

2.  There  is  a  belief  of  testimony  ;  i.  e.,  of  thoughts  which  are  supposed  to 
tigree  with  objective  realities,  because  they  are  confirmed  by  the  report  of 
others.  3.  There  is  a  belief  of  the  reason;  i.  e.,  of  thoughts  that  are  con- 
firmed by  a  process  of  reasoning.  4.  There  is  a  belief  of  the  semei  ;  i.  e., 
of  thoughts  that  are  confirmed  by  the  impressions  of  the  senses. 

The  three  latter  kinds  of  belief  are  chiefly  concerned  in  the  formation  of 
the  opinions  of  sane  persons  in  ordinary  life.  Tlie  two  latter  are  principally 
relied  on  by  those  w^ho  are  considered  wise  in  their  generation.  The  beUef 
of  the  senses  distinguishes  ^\q  practical  wise  man ;  and  the  belief  of  the  reason 
the  philosophical  wise  man.  In  proportion  as  a  person  leaves  the  guidance 
of  his  senses  and  reason,  and  relies  on  testimony  and  imagination,  he  ap- 
proaches credulous  folly  and  insanity.  ^ 

Besides  all  these,  there  is  a  fifth  kind,  which  maybe  called  Byiritual  belief. 
One  spirit  can  present  itself  to  the  perceptions  of  another  and  communicate 
thoughts  and  persuasions,  without  the  intervention  of  any  verbal  testimony, 
any  process  of  reasoning,  or  any  impression  of  the  senses.  This  is  proved 
by  the  phenomena  of  Mesmerism,  and  is  recognized  as  an  established  truth 
throughout  the  Bible.  When  a  man  believes  thoughts  thus  caused  or  con-  ,^ 
firmed,  his  belief  is  spiritual. 

This  kind  of  behef  is  liable  to  be  confounded  by  superficial  observers 
with  imaginative  belief.  It  ascertains  the  truth  of  its  thoughts  by  none  of 
the  processes  ordinarily  used.  It  appeals  to  no  external  testimony,  no  train 
of  argument,  no  sensual  evidence.  To  ordinary  apprehension  its  resources, 
like  those  of  imaginative  belief,  are  wholly  subjective.  Doubtless  too,  in 
many  cases,  pretenders  to  spiritual  behef  have  mistaken  their  imaginations 
for  spiritual  impressions,  and  so  have  been  really  imaginative  behevers, 
having  nothing  in  common  with  spiritual  believers  but  the  negative  charac- 
teristic of  having  left  the  region  of  sense,  reason,  and  external  testimony. 

But  in  its  essential  nature,  spiritual  belief  is  no  more  alhed  to  imaginative 
than  either  of  the  three  kinds  that  are  accepted  by  the  world  as  rational.  It 
most  resembles  belief  of  the  senses  and  testimony.  It  is,  in  fact,  belief  of 
the  internal  senses  and  of  testimony  conveyed  not  by  words,  but  by  spiritual 


28  ULTIMATE  GROUND  OF  FAITH. 

impressions.  It  13  not  altogether  subjective.  Its  source  of  evidence  is  froiit 
■without  the  circle  of  its  own  thoughts — as  truly  so  as  verbal  testimony.  A 
man  who  behoves  spiritual  impressions^  is  no  more  properly  chargeable  with 
behoving  his  own  imaginations  than  one  Who  beHeves  his  neighbor's  word. 

He  is  hable,  however,  to  be  deceived.  There  are  f^lse  spirits,  as  there 
are  lying  men  ;  and  he  who  behoves  the  impressions  of  all  sorts  of  spirits, 
will  be  as  miserably  misled  as  he  who  behoves  every  report  that  he  hears. 
And  in  the  infancy  of  spirituahsm  there  is  perhaps  more  danger  of  running 
into  this  indiscriminate  credulity,  than  there  is  in  ordinary  life  ;  because  the 
novice  naturally  imagines  that  every  impression  he  receives  comes  from  God, 
and  his  veneration  binds  him  to  behove  without  questioning. 

But  assummg  that  a  spiritualist  has  learned  to  discriminate  between  true 
and  false  spirits  as  wisely  as  persons  of  common  sense  discriminate  between 
true  and  false  men,  there  is  no  more  folly  in  his  belief,  founded  on  spiritual 
impressions,  than  there  is  in  theirs  founded  on  verbal  testimony.  And  if  he 
is  in  communication  with  God,  the  source  of  all  truth,  his  belief  is  altogether 
more  trustworthy  than  even  the  behef  of  the  senses  or  of  reason ;  for  God  is 
less  likely  to  persuade  hun  of  falsehood  than  his  own  eyes  or  his  own  intellect. 

This  is  the  nature  of  true  faith.  It  is  not  a  belief  of  imaginations,  though 
it  may  easily  be  mistaken  for  that.  It  is  no.t  a  belief  of  human  report.  It 
is  not  a  belief  of  any  process  of  reasoning.  It  is  not  a  belief  of  the  external 
senses.  It  is  not  an  indiscriminate  belief  of  spiritual  impressions.  But  it  is 
a  behef  of  the  persuasions  of  God's  spirit.  The  faith  of  the  prophets  in  their 
own  predictions  must  necessarily  have  been  a  confidence  in  divine  impressions. 
So  faith  in  prayer,  (which  is  a  kind  of  prophesying,)  must  be  an  anticipa- 
tive  persuasion  wrought  by  the  spiiit  of  God.  So  also  all  hopes  of  salvation 
that  are  authentic  and  sure,  are  of  the  nature  of  prophecy,  and  must  be 
caused  and  sustained  by  the  spiritual  power  of  him  who  '  seeth  the  end  from 
the  beginning.' 

Now  while  we  recognize  and  duly  value  all  the  lower  evidences  which  may 
be  set  ui  array  for  the  defence  of  Bible-religion  against  infidelity,  it  is  still  to 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  belief  which  is  caused  by  these  evidences  is  but 
the  precursor  and  auxiliary  of  spiritual  faith.  Here  is  the  advantage  which 
the  true  believer  may  claim  over  all  other  disciples  of  truth.  From  all  the 
sophistries  of '  the  disputers  of  this  world,'  he  can  appeal  to  the  testimony  of 
his  o^yn  internal  perceptions.  While  he  can  say  '  I  have  seen,  and  therefore 
behove,'  the  infidel  can  only  reply,  '  I  have  not  seen  and  therefore  believe 
not ;'  and  a  mere  negative  of  this  kind  in  one  man's  mouth,  has  properly  no 
force  against  the  positive  knowledge  of  another. — We  will  illustrate  the  fore- 
going positions  by  a  sketch  of  the  grounds,  both  proximate  and  ultunate,  on 
which  rests  the  behef  of  the  existence  of  God. 

The  evidence  that  there  is  a  God  is  of  two  sorts — direct  and  indirect.  It 
is  manifest  that  God  Inmself  has  evidence  of  his  own  existence,  independently 
of  any  testimony  of  his  works — the  evidence  of  co7isciousness.  So  they  who 
stand  in  his  presence  or  are  joined  to  his  spirit,  whether  angels  or  saints, 
know  his  existence  by  immediate  ferception.  This  we  call  direct  evidence. 
On  the  other  hand  the  whole  creation  is  full  of  the  tohns  of  his  '  invisible 


UtTiMAl'B  GROUND  Ot  FAITIt.  29 

J^ower  and  Godhead.'  So  that  a  thoughtful  and  honest  observer,  howevfei* 
remote  from  his  immediate  presence,  could  not  fail  to  infer  his  existence. 
This  we  call  mdirect  evidence. 

The  following  is  a  sketch  of  the  most  comprehensive  argument  for  the  ex- 
istence of  God,  from  indireet  evidence :  1.  Mere  matter  has  no  power  in 
itself.  All  motion  must  be  the  effect,  and  of  course  the  evidence  of  life. 
But  all  visible  matter  is  in  motion.  Therefore  all  visible  matter  demonstrates 
the  existence  of  life.     The  unity  of  that  life  is  proved  by  the  unity  of  all  the 

treat  movements  of  matter ;  and  its  omnipotence  by  their  immensity. — 
.  Order  is  not  the  effect  of  chance  or  of  a  blind  will*  All  orderly  motion 
is  evidence  of  intelligence.  But  all  visible  matter  is  in  orderly  motion. 
Therefore  all  visible  matter  demonstrates  the  existence  of  intelligence.  The 
immense  extent  and  ingenuity  of  the  order  of  the  universe,  proves  that  intel- 
ligence to  be  omniscience.  3.  All  orderly  motion  tending  to  produce  hapj^i- 
ness,  is  evidence  of  benevolence.  But  all  visible  matter  is  in  orderly  motion 
tending  to  produce  happiness.  All  visible  matter  therefore  demonstrates 
that  the  inteUigent  life  which  moves  it,  is  benevolent.  Thus  the  universe 
testifies  of  an  invisible  being,  whose  elements  are  infinite  life,  light,  and 
LOVE.     Such  a  being  we  may  safely  worship  as  GOD. 

Arguments  of  this  kind  show  how  much  proof  of  the  existence  of  God 
man  onight  have  found  by  the  light  of  nature,  had  he  been  an  honest  and 
diligent  observer.  Of  course,  they  show  that  all,  even  the  heathen,  are 
under  the  obligations  and  responsibihties  of  the  divine  government.  But 
they  by  no  means  indicate  the  process  by  which  men  do  actually  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  true  God.  Human  perverseness  has  been  found  proof 
against  the  testimony  of  creation  ;  and  all  valuable  knowledge  of  God  has 
come  by  means  supplied  by  an  economy  of  special  revelation.  That  economy 
employs,  as  its  chief  and  final  powder  of  proof,  direct  spiritual  evidence ; 
making  all  indirect  testimony  only  introductory  and  subordinate. 

The  process  by  which  believers  generally  arrive  at  a  solid  practical  assu- 
rance of  the  existence  of  God,  is  tliis :  First,  they  hear  of  him  from  their 
parents  and  teachers ;  (and  it  has  been  God's  care  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world  to  provide  this  first  means  of  instruction  ;)  thus  their  minds  are  pre- 
occupied with  a  persuasion  of  his  existence.  Then  they  read  the  book  which 
contains  the  records  of  his  past  manifestations  to  mankind,  and  gives  them 
directions  for  approaching  him.  Finally,  they  follow  those  directions,  and 
ascertaui  that  there  is  a  God  by  actual  communion  with  him.  In  other  w^ords, 
they  first  believe  the  report  of  men  and  books,  so  far  as  to  seek  God  ;  and 
when  they  have  found  him,  they  believe  the  evidence  of  their  own  spiritual 
senses. 

This  method  of  coming  to  rest  in  the  conclusion  that  there  is  a  God,  how- 
ever it  may  be  derided  by  skeptics,  is  by  no  means  irrational.  An  illustra- 
tion will  set  it  ui  its  true  light.  Suppose  the  case  of  a  man  bom  in  a  remote 
province  of  some  great  empire.  He  is  a  subject  of  a  king  whom  he  has 
never  seen.  In  order  that  he  may  be  a  good  subject,  he  must  have  a  sure 
beUef  in  the  existence  of  his  king.  By  what  process  may  he  most  readily 
assure  hunself  of  the  truth  which  he  thus  needs  to  know  ?      He  hears  the 


•BO  6UIDE  OF  INTERPREtATION. 

testimony  of  common  report ;  he  sees  the  administration  of  government  aromid 
him ;  he  has  a  copy  of  the  statutes  of  the  empire  ;  he  has  conversed  with 
some  who  profess  to  have  seen  the  king.  With  these  gromids  of  behef,  he 
may  sm-cly,  without  exposing  himself  to  any  fair  charge  of  creduhty,  incjuire 
his  way  to  the  king's  presence,  and  so  convert  the  persuasion  that  comes  by 
report  into  the  certainty  that  comes  by  personal  knowledge.  Ever  after- 
ward, his  answer  to  those  who  ask  why  he  behoves  in  the  existence  of  the 
king,  will  be — ''Because  I  have  seen  him^^  So,  to  the  question,  '  Why  do 
you  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  God  V  the  spiritual  man  ^answers— '  I  did 
beUevc  at  first  because  I  heard  reports  ef  him,  and  saw  his  works  ;  but  I 
iioto  believe  because  my  spirit  perceives  him,'' 

By  a  similar  process  the  believer's  heart  attains  immovable  confidence  in 
the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God.  At  first  he  is  persuaded  to  respect  and  read 
it  by  the  testimony  of  men.  Afterward  perhaps  his  understanding  is  satisfied 
by  historical  evidences,  by  the  miracles  and  fulfilments  of  prophecy  which 
attest  its  divinity,  and  by  his  own  perceptions  of  its  intrinsic  goodness  and 
grandeur.  But  all  these  vouchers,  external  and  internal,  though  sufficient 
to  condemn  infidelity,  are  but  the  harbingers  of  that '  full  assurance  of  faith' 
which  rests  on  the  spiritual  testimony  of  God.  The  man  who  assures  him- 
self of  the  existence  of  his  king  by  seeking  his  presence,  will  also  at  the  same 
time  verify,  by  pereonal  inquiry,  the  authenticity  of  the  statute-book  which 
bears  the  king's  name.  To  the  question,  '  Why  do  you  believe  the  Bible  V 
the  best  of  all  answers  is — •'  Because  God  endorses  it  in  his  communications 
with  my  heart,  and  m  all  his  discipline  of  me,  owns  it,  as  the  auxiliary  of  his 
Spirit.' 


^  6.    THE  GUIDE  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

Having  ascertained  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  and  of  course  our 
text-book  of  doctrine,  the  question  now  arises.  Who  shall  he  our  instructor 
in  that  text-hook  P  The  Catholic  answers — '  The  Churchy  hy  its  traditions 
and  the  teaching  of  its  p)riests.''  The  Protestant  answers — '  We  need  7io  in- 
structor ;  the  Bihle  itself  is  the  only  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice,^ 
But  we  may  reply  to  the  Protestant,  except  it  be  interpreted  it  is  no  rule  at 
all;  and  mterpretation  implies  something  beside  and  ahove  the  Bible,  viz., 
judgment  or  ophiion.  Still  then  we  ask,  Who  shall  direct  our  judgment  9 
— who  shall  govern  our  opinion  in  determining  the  meaning  of  the  Bihle  ? 
In  the  nature  of  the  case,  we  need  an  interpreter  with  the  Bible,  as  truly 
as  the  infant  scholar  needs  a  schoolmaster  with  his  spelling-book.  And  in 
fact,  Protestants  have  yielded  to  the  necessity  of  the  case.  Their  laity  re- 
ceive their  rule  of  faith  and  practice  from  the  clergy ;  the  clergy  in  turn 
receive  it  from  the  schools  ;  and  the  schools  receive  it  partly  from  tradition, 
and  partly  from  human,  and  even  infidel  learning.     }3ut  even  if  the  Pro- 


GUIDE  OP  INTERPRETATION.  8t 

{estant  theory  could  be  carried  out,  and  private  judgment  actually  take  the 
place  of  tradition  and  human  learning,  it  would  still  be  true  that  the  Bible  of 
itself  is  not  the  rule  ;  for  then  private  judgment  would  be  the  schoolmaster, 
and  the  Bible  only  its  text-book  ;  and  in-  this,  as  in  all  other  cases,  the  school- 
master would  be  above  the  book.. 

Seeing  then  we  must  have  a  guide,  whom  shall  we  choose  ?  We  answer, 
THE  HOLY  GHOST.  It  should  be  presumed  that  God,  if  he  has  given  the 
world  a  book,  has  also  provided  an  interpreter.  Accordingly  we  find  the 
Bible  itself  plainly  directs  us  to  its  author,  the  Spirit  of  truth^  as  the  ultimate 
guide  of  faith.  The  great  promise  of  the  Old  Testament  is,  that  '  all  shall 
he  taugU  of  God:  (See  Isa.  54;  13,  Jer.  31:  34.)  And  the  New  Testa- 
ment records  the  fulfilment  of  this  promise,  in  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  on  the  primitive  Christian  church.  Christ  did  not  rely  even  on  his 
own  verbal  instructions  to  his  disciples,  (though  we  may  presume  they  were 
as  perfect  as  those  of  the  scriptures,)  but  referred  them  to  the  Comforter, 
as  their  ultimate  and  effectual  instructor.  (See  John  14:  26,  28.)  Paul 
prayed  that  the  Ephesians,  whom  he  had  taught  abundantly  by  Avord  of 
mouth,  might  have  '  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation.'^  Eph.  1:  17.  John 
thus  describes  the  church  of  the  new  covenant:  '  Ye  have  an  unction  from 
the  Holy  One^  and  ye  know  all  things  ;  I  have  not  written  unto  you  because 
ye  know  not  the  truth.  *  *  *  The  anointing  which  ye  have  received  of 
him  abideth  in  you^  and  ye  need  not  that  any  man  teach  you :  hut  as  the  same 
anointing  teacheth  you  of  all  things^  and  is  truth,  and  is  no  lie,  and  eveji  as 
it  hath  taught  you,  ye  shall  abide  in  him.''  1  John  2:  20 — 27.  Thus  we 
have  the  authority  of  the  Bible  itself  for  regarding  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the 
superior  oracle,  not  contradicting  or  superceding  the  Bible,  but  interpreting 
and  applying  it. 

Eor  the  sake  of  developing  our  views  on  this  point  more  fully,  we  will  here 
present  and  discuss  at  some  length  the  principles  of  the  anti-spiritual  school. 

One  of  the  text-books  at  Andover  is  Ernesti  on  Inte^yretation,  translated 
from  the  German  and  pubhshed  with  notes  by  Moses  Stuart.  The  conclu- 
ding part  of  the  book  is  a  chapter  from  Keil,  a  German  critic,  '  on  the  quali- 
fications of  an  interpreter.'  Prof.  Stuart  commends  it  as  a  '  well  digested 
summary.'  That  our  readers  may  have  a  fair  view  of  the  German  and 
Andoverian  equipments,  we  subjoin  the  substance  of  Keil's  chapter : 

^  1.  He  who  desires  to  understand  and  interpret  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
mnsi,  first  of  all,  acquire  some  historic  knowledge  of  the  author  of  each  book  ;  of  the 
state  of  things  existing-  when  it  was  written  ;  of  the  body  or  collection  of  the  New 
Testament  books  J  of  the  particular  history  of  its  ancient  versions,  editions,  and  parts 
in  which  it  was  written  ;  and  other  things  of  this  nature.  To  this  must  be  added  a 
knowledge  of  the  principles  of  criticism,  in  respect  to  the  text  of  the  New  Testament. 

$  2.  Of  the  second  kind  of  knowledge,  preparatory  to  the  understanding  and  interpretation 
of  the  Neu)  Testament. 

(1)  The  interpreter  must  understand  the  language  in  which  the  hooks  are  written.  As  the 
diction  is  not  pure  classic  Greek,  but  the  Hebrew  idiom  here  and  there  intermixed  with 
classic  Greek,  and  as  vestiges  of  the  Chaldee,  Syriac,  Rabbinic  and  Latin  languages 
occur;  it  follows,  of  course,  that  the  interpreter  should  not  only  be  acquainted  with 
pure  Greek,  but  with  its  various  dialects,  specially  the  Alexandrine.  Above  all,  ho 
ought  to  be  well  versed  in  the  Hebrew,  Chaldee,  Syriac,  Rabbinic,  and  Latin  idioms. 

(2)  The  interpreter  must  possess  a  knowledge  of  the  things  respecting  tchich  the  book  treats. 
These  are  partly  historical,  and  partly  doctrinal.      The  explanation  of  them  must  be 


32  GUIDE  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

sought,  primarily,  froin  the  books  themselves;  and  secondarily,  from  those  writing's  of 
more  reectit  authors,  which  may  be  subsidiary  to  tiie  attainment  of  this  knowledge. 

^  3.  As  to  the  liistorie  matter  of  these  books.  It  is  of  g-reat  importance  to  the  interpreter 
to  be  well  versed  in  sacred  g-eography,  chronology,  civil  history,  and  archtT?ology ;  i.  e., 
to  understand  those  things  which  respect  the  sitijation  and  climate  of  the  countries 
where  the  events  referred  to  h&ppcned  ;  as  well  as  those  which  serve  to  define  the  times 
when  they  happened ;  and  also  the  history  of  the  nation  among  whom  they  took  place, 
and  of  other  nations  mentioned  in  this  history,  with  their  condition,  manners,,  and  cus- 
toms. 

(1)  Geographical  knowledge.  The  geography  of  Palestine  and  the  neighboring  coun- 
tries should  be  well  understood,  as  also  their  natural  productions.  To  this  must  be 
added  a  knowledge  of  many  countries  in  Asia,  and  of  some  in  Europe;  also  the  Roman 
empire,  as  it  then  existed,,  divided  into  provinces. 

(2)  Chronology.  The  interpreter  should  have  not  only  a  knowledge  of  technlcaf  chro- 
nology, but  of  the  Roman  mode  of  reckoning  ab  urbe  condita,  and  of  the  Greek  Olympi- 
ads, on  which  subjects  he  may  study  authors  well  deserving  of  credit;)  but  in  respect 
to  historical  chronology,  he  should  know  in  what  order  of  time  the  events  related  in  the 
Old  Testament  happened  ;  when  and  where  the  first  Roman  emperors,  the  various  kings 
and  princes  that  sprung  from  the  house  of  Herod  the  Great,  the  Roman  consuls  at  the 
beginning  of  the  empire  of  the  Cesars,^  the  Jewish  high  priests  (and  the  number  of  them) 
in  our  Savior's  time,  and  the  Roman  magistrates,  speeially  in  the  provinces  of  Syria 
and  Judea,  succeeded  each  other. 

(3)  History  civil  and  political.  In  regard  to  the  history  of  events  among  the  nations 
mentioned  in  the  sacred  books,  and  also  their  forms  of  government,  it  is  important  for 
the  interpreter  to  make  himself  acquainted,  first,  with  the  ancient  history  ot  the  Jews.^ 
In  studying  this,  he  is  not  to  confine  himself  merely  to  the  Old  Testament;  he  must 
also  consult  the  traditionary  accounts  which  were  extant  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the 
apostles.  Secondly,  he  must  study  the  history  of  the  Jews  under  the  Herods,  and  that 
ot  these  princes.  Thirdly,  the  condition  and  circumstances  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine, 
while  under  the  dominion  of  the  Romans;  and  also  of  the  Jews  living  in  other  coun- 
tries. P'inally,  the  history  of  the  Roman  emperors  at  that  period,  and  of  the  Roman 
prefects  over  the  Asiatic  provinces. 

(4)  Manners  and  customs.  In  regard  to  these,  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  antiquities  ii* 
general  is  necessary.  A  considerable  knowledge  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  antiquities. 
A  knowledge  of  the  ecclesiastical  rites  and  customs  of  the  primitive  churches;  both; 
those  which  they  received  from  the  Hebrews,  and  others  which  were  introduced  by 
Christians  themselves. 

§  4.  Doctrinal  contents  of  the  sacred  books.  That  part  of  the  New  Testament  which  is 
directly  concerned  with  faith  and  practice,  will  be  rightly  understood  when  the  interppe- 
ter  rightly  understands  what  each  particular  writer  has  inculcated.  As  there  are  many 
passages  which  relate  to  the  Jews ;  and  as  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  and  their 
first  readers  were  of  Jewish  extraction  ;  it  will  be  important, 

(1)  To  know  the  sentiments  of  the  Jews  of  that  period,  in  regard  to  religion;  spe- 
cially of  those  who  used  the  Hebrew-Greek  dialect,  and  of  the  three  great  sects  among: 
which  the  Jews  were  divided,  viz.,  the  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  and  Essenes. 

(2)  Thcjrrecepts  of  the  Christian  religion.  What  was  adopted  from  the  Jewish  religion^ 
what  rejected,  and  what  was  added  anew  to  Christianity,  must  be  understood  in  order 
to  explain  the  New  Testament  properly.  But  knowledge  of  this  nature,  that  is  certain, 
can  be  drawn  only  fiom  the  sacred  writings  themselves. 

(3)  The  doctrines  of  heretical  sects.  It  is  important  to  know  the  opinions  of  early  here- 
tics, because,  it  is  probable,  some  passages  of  the  New  Testament  have  a  special 
reference  to  them. 

^  5.  In  enumerating  the  qualifications  of  an  interpreter,  wemust  not  omit  a  knowledge 
of  grammar,  rhetoric,  and  philosophy. 

(1)  Gramviar.  Not  only  a  general  knowledge  of  its  principles  is  necessajy,  but  also 
especial  technical  knowledge  of  both  etymology  and  syntax.  The  interpreter  must  be 
acquainted  with  the  various  forms  of  words,  and  understand  how  the  significations  are 
connected  with  the  forms ;  he  must  understand  the  manner  in  which  words  are  con- 
nected in  a  sentence;  the  use  of  the  particles;  and  also  of  the  grammatical  figures,  asr 
they  are  called,  such  as  ellipsis  and  pleonasm. 

(2)  Rhetoric.  A  knowledge  of  this  is  necessary,  not  so  much  to  judge  of  rhetorical 
figures,  as  to  find  out  the  meaning  of  them,  or  the  sentiment  they  are  designed  to  convey* 

(3)  A  knoicledge  of  philosophy.  Not  that  of  some  particular  school  or  sect  merely,  but 
that  which  pertains  to  the  cultivation  of  the  mental  powers,  and  to  nice  psychological 


GtJIDH  OV  I^TERPRBTATIO!^,  S^ 

dlscrlmliifttlon.  Such  a  knovvleflge  is  requisite,  in  order  to  form  clear  conceptions  in 
the  mind,  and  accurately  to  define  our  ideas;  to  discern  what  is  similar  in  diflerenl 
thing-s,  and  what  is  distinct ;  to  judge  of  the  connexion  of  thought  and  argument;  and 
finallj'',  to  qualify  one  perspicuously  to  represent  the  opinions  of  an  author  to  otliers. — 
Great  caution  however  is  necessary  here,  lest  the  interpreter  intrude  upon  his  author 
his  own  particular  philosophy. — Erncsti,  p.  120-124. 

The  remarkable  thing  about  this  ^  summary'  is  its  entire  omission  of  all 
spiritual  qualifications  for  biblical  interpretation.  Every  one  of  Keil's  requi- 
sites are  as  attainable  by  a  studious  infidel  as  by  a  disciple  of  Christ.  The 
teachings  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  a  knowledge  of  the  mysteries  of  the  spirit- 
ual world  have  no  place  in  his  account. 

It  may  be  said  however,  in  extenuation  of  this  omission,  that  it  was  not 
Keil's  intention  to  describe  the  «w6;'e<?twe  qualifications,  of  an  interpreter,  but 
only  to  enumerate  the  departments  oi  objective  knowledge  mth  which  a  bibli- 
cal critic  must  be  conversant.  If  this  is  true,  the  title  of  the  chapter  is  too 
general.  It  should  have  been — '  The  ohjecfive  qualiiications  of  an  interpre- 
ter.' And  even  then  there  would  have  been  no  excuse  for  not  mentioning  a 
knowledge  of  the  topography  and  history  of  the  spiritual  world,  as  equally 
necessary  with  a  knowledge  of  the  topography  and  history  of  Palestine,  the 
Roman  empire,  &c.  Ouranography  is  certainly  as  important  an  element  as 
geography  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible. 

But  we  are  not  left  in  any  doubt  as  to  the  place  which  the  German  theo- 
logians and  Pi'of.  Stuart  assign  to  spiritual  wisdom  among  the  qualifications 
of  an  interpreter.  In  the  former  part  of  the  work  to  which  the  above  sum- 
mary is  appended,  we  have  a  delineation  of  the  subjective  characteristics  of 
a  good  biblical  critic.     We  copy  the  text  without  Prof  Stuart's  notes : 

Requisites  of  a  good  interpreter.  The  act  of  interpretation  implies  two  things  ;  viz.,  a 
right  perception  of  the  meaning  of  words,  and  a  proper  explanation  of  that  meaning. 
Hence  a  good  interpreter  must  possess  a  sovnd  understandings  snd  be  skillful  in  explana- 
tion. A  sound  understanding  is  exhibited  in  two  ways  ;  first^  in  discerning  whether  we 
really  understand  a  passage  or  not,  and,  provided  we  do  not,  in  discovering  the  diffi- 
culties that  lie  in  the  way  of  rightly  understanding  it,  and  the  grounds  of  those  difficul- 
ties; secondly,  in  finding  out^  by  a  proper  method  of  investigation,  the  sense  of  those 
passages  which  are  difficult. 

Means  hy^  lohich  difficulties  and  their  causes  are  detected.  A  good  degree  of  talent  or  capac- 
ity is  requisite  for  this;  for  men  of  small  capacity  frequently  assent  to  thing'^  which 
seem  to  be  taught,  without  any  good  reasons  for  so  doing;  and  often  believe  themselves 
to  understand  what  they  do  not  understand.  To  a  good  degree  of  talent  must  be  joined 
n  careful  habit  of  distinguishing  ideas  of  things  from  mere  words  or  sounds  ;  for  we 
ought  always  to  inquire,  in  respect  to  any  word,,  whether  we  have  a  distinct  perceptica 
of  the  thing  or  idea  which  it  is  meant  «o  designate,^  and  not  to  regard  merely  tlie  sound 
of  the  word. 

Means  of  removing  these  difficulties.  The  first  means  is  a  just  and  accurate  knowledge 
of  languages.  The  next,  an  acquaintance  with  the  principles  of  interpretation.  Not 
that  no  one  can  interpret  at  all,  without  a  scientific  knowledge  of  these  principles ;  but 
because  they  assist  men  of  moderate  talents,  and  guide  them  as  it  were  in  the  right 
way,  so  that  they  are  not  left  to  depend  on  chance  i-ather  than  reason.  Besides,  they 
are,  in  this  way,  supplied  with  a  common  rule  for  judging  in  controverted  cases. — 
Finally,  as  in  detecting  difficulties,  exercise  and  habit  are  important,  so  here,  they  are 
of  so  much  consequence  that  all  other  advantages  will  be  of  little  use  without  them. 

Exercises  and  habits  adapted  ta  overcome  the  difficulties  of  interpretation.  First,  we  should 
attend  the  instructions  of  a  good  interpreter;  next,  we  should  read  those  works  where 
exegetical  knowledge  is  displayed  in  the  best  manner,  and  reflect  much  upon  them,  for 
in  this  way  we  may  be  led  to  the  imitation  of  them;  and  lastly,  those  books  which  we 
desire  to  interpret  must  be  assiduously  and  constantly  perused. 

Skill  in  Gxplanation,    This  is  exhibited  by  expressing  the  sense  of  an  author,  either  in 

4 


t^ords  of  the  same  langnias-e  which  are  more  perspicuous  than  hU,  or  by  trahsltiiitig 
into  another  laiig-nacre,  and  explaining-  by  arg-nment  and  illustration.  In  addition  to  afi 
accurate  knowledg-e  ofthe  lang-uage  which  we  translate,  skill  in  explaining  re  qu'wes  that 
■we  sliould  exhibit  purity  of  diction  }  still  preserving",  so  far  as  may  be,  the  teatufes  of 
the  orig-inal,  lest  the  morZc  of  reasoning- should  be  obscured,  which  sometimes  depends 
on  the  form  of  the  words. — Enicsti,  p.  2-5. 

Here  again  is  no  mention  of  spiritual  illumination,  no  allusion  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  the  guide  or  even  the  auxiliary  of  a  sound  understanding.  Good 
talents,  good  habits  of  thought  and  study,  good  human  instructors,  and  good 
models,  are  required ;  but  that  spiritual  discernment  which  comes  by  personal 
acquaintance  with  God  and  with  the  imier  world,  is  not  hinted  at.  The  sub- 
jective qualifications  of  an  interpreter  of  the  Bible,  according  to  Emesti  and 
Stuart,  are  just  those  which  are  requisite  in  an  interpreter  of  Homer  and 
Blackstone,— nothing  more.  Indeed  this  is  distinctly  avowed  ift  a  stibsequeiit 
section  of  the  book.     Ernesti  says : 

The  principles  of  interpretation  ate  common  to  sacred  and  profane  wAtinggi  Of  coiirse,  the 
scriptures  are  to  he  investigated  by  the  same  rules  as  other  books.  Those  fanatic9y 
therefore,  are  not  to  be  reg-arded,  who,  despising  literature  and  the  study  of  the  la»- 
g-uages,  refer  every  thing-  merely  to  (he  influence  of  the  ypirit.  Not  that  We  doubt  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit?  or  that  men  truly  pious  and  desirous  of  knowing  the  truth,  ar6 
assisted  by  it  in  their  researches,  specially  in  those  things  that  pertain  to  faith  and 
practice,  p.  15. 

In  a  note  on  this,  Prof.  Stuart  says-— 

If  the  scriptures  be  a  revelation  to  men,  then  are  they  to  be  read  and  understood  bjr 
men.  If  the  same  laws  of  language  are  not  observed  in  this  retelation,  as  are  common 
to  men,  then  they  have  no  guide  to  the  right  understanding  of  the  scriptures  :  and  an 
inZer/weter  needs  inspim^ion  as  much  as  the  original  writer.  It  follows,  of  course,  that 
the  scriptures  would  be  no  revelation  in  themselves;  nor  of  any  use,  except  to  those  who 
are  inspired.  But  stich  a  book  the  scriptures  are  not  ;  and  nothing  is  more  evident  than 
that  '  lohen  God  has  spoken  to  men^  he  has  spoken  in  the  language  of  men,  for  he  has  spoken 
by  men,  and  for  men.'  p,  15. 

This  is  all  we  find  in  the  book  on  the  Subject  of  divine  influence  as  a  help 
to  understanding  and  interpreting  the  scriptures.  Emesti  pioudy  admits 
that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  the  influence  of  the  Spirit ;  and  that  it  assists 
men  somewhat  in  their  biblical  researches  ;  but  he  evidently  considers  this 
assistance  not  important  enough  to  deserve  a  separate  notice  in  liis  enumera- 
tion of  the  requisites  of  an  interpreter.  Indeed  one  would  judge  that  he 
regarded  it  as  some  tiling  so  inexplicable  and  unappreciable,  that  the  science 
of  hermeneutics  has  nothing  to  ao  with  it,  except  to  put  men  on  their  guard 
against  thinking  too  highly  of  it.  And  Stuart,  wholly  passing  by  Ernesti'a 
concession  m  favor  of  the  Spirit,  heartily  chimes  in  with  his  assertion  that 
the  Bible  is  on  a  level  with  other  books,  and  needs  no  help  from  heaven  for 
its  interpretation. 

We  are  not  among  those  "  fanatics,  -who,  despising  literature  and  the  study 
of  the  languages,  refer  every  thing  merely  to  the  influence  of  the  Spirit." 
We  highly  appreciate  all  tlie  qualifications,  objective  and  subjective,  which 
are  enumerated  by  Keil  and  Ernesti ;  and  we  have  quoted  at  large  their  de- 
lineations of  a  good  interpreter,  partly  for  the  purpose  of  commending  them 
to  our  readers'  attention,  as  useful  suggestions,  so  far  as  they  go.  It  is  as 
true  of  the  interpreter  of  the  Bible  as  of  any  other  professional  man,  that 
the  more  real  knowledge  of  every  kind  he  has,  the  better.  He  should  by  all 
means  avoid  smothering  his  spiritual  life  under  the  aimor  of  his  learning ;  but 


OUIDB  01"  INTERPRISTATION*  S5 

lie  filiould  certainly  have  at  command  all  the  resources  of  philology,  archseol* 
ogy,  &c.  Yet  knowing  as  we  do,  by  the  testimony  of  the  Bible  itself,  as  well 
as  by  every  other  mode  of  demonstration,  that  divine  illumination  and  spirit- 
ual experience  are  by  far  the  most  essential  of  all  qualifications  for  interpre- 
ting the  word  of  God,  we  look  upon  the  disregard  of  these  qualifications,  and 
Mie  imphed  contempt  of  them  which  we  have  noticed  in  the  preceding  extracts 
'from  Keil,  Ernesti  and  Stuart,  with  that  kind  of  indignation  which  is  due  to 
blasphemy ;  and  We  enter  our  protest  before  heaven  and  earth  agauist  the 
system  of  hermeneutics  which  puts  human  learning  in  the  place  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

The  reasoning  on  which  the  anti-spiritual  th«eory  of  hermeneutics  is  based, 
is  brought  to  view  in  Prof.  Stuart's  note — the  last  of  th-e  above  quotations. 
That  reasoning  may  be  condensed  into  the  follo^nng  syllogism :  1,  a  reve- 
lation to  men  must  be  intelligible  without  inspiration ;  2,  the  Bible  is  such  a 
revelation ;  8,  therefore  inspiration  is  not  necessary  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  Bible.  If  the  first  of  these  propositions  is  true,  it  must  be  assumed  that 
a  revelation  from  God  to  men  which  can  be  understood  only  by  the  help  of 
iaspiration,  is  an  absurdity,  and  was  an  absurdity  in  Bible-times  ;  and  that 
God  never  sent  such  messages,  and  never  inspired  mon  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  them  to  interpret  Ms  messages.  We  take  issue  with  Prof.  Stuart 
on  the  question  of  fact  involved  in  these  assumptions.  Our  present  concern 
is  not  with  the  philosophy  of  the  matter.  We  do  not  undertake  now  to  say 
why  and  how  far  the  interpretation  of  the  Bibie  requires  inspiration,  or 
whether  the  reason  of  its  requiring  inspiration  lies  in  the  peculiarity  of  its 
ilaws  of  language,  or  of  its  subjects.  These  will  be  matters  for  after-conside- 
ration. The  question  now  before  us  is  whether  God  has  or  has  not  in  past 
times  inspired  men  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  them  to  interpret  his  verbal 
messages, — whether  the  idea  of  a  secondary  inspiration  employed  to  inter- 
pret primary  revelations,  is  or  is  not  <m  absurdity.  The  Bible  shall  be  our 
witness. 

1.  In  the  case  of  the  disciples^  the  Koly  Gho^  was  certainly  eent  upon 
them  especially  for  the  purpose  of  ennabling  them  to  interpret  the  verbal  in- 
structions which  Christ  gave  them  while  in  the  world.  'These  things  have 
I  spoken  unto  you  being  yet  present  ^rith  you  ;  £this  was  the  primary  reve- 
lation ;]  but  the  Gomforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Grhost,  whom  the  Father  "vvill 
send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your 
remembrance  whatsoever  i  have  said  unto  you  ;'  {this  was  the  secondary 
revelation,  ond  was  indispensable  to  the  efficacy  of  the  primary.]  John  14: 
25,  26.     See  also  16:  1%, 

2.  The  book  of  Daniel  is  full  of  instances  of  revelations  interpreted  by 
inspiration.  Daniel  constantly  looked  to  God,  not  only  for  the  text,  but  for 
the  commentary.  See  Dan.  7:  15,  16,  8:  15—19,  10:  21. 

3.  The  *  interpretation  of  tongues'  in  the  primitive  church,  which  was  in 
effect  commentary  on  the  efiiisions  of  inspiration,  was  one  of  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit.  1  Cor.  12:  10. 

If  it  is  said  that  in  all  these  cases  the  primary  communications  were  not 
^to'^^ly  revelations  J  since  they  were  not  expected  or  intended  to  be  intelilir 


B6  GtJIDB  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

gible  till  they  should  he  explained  by  subsequent  communications,  wc  reply, 
it  may  be  found  that  the  Bible  itself,  or  at  least  a  large  portion  of  it,  is,  in 
tlie  same  sense,  not  a  revelation.  The  personal  instructions  of  Christ,  the 
symbolical  visions  of  Daniel,  and  the  effusions  of  those  who  spoke  with 
tongues,  certainly  came  from  God,  and  in  that  sense  were  revelations.  They 
were  sealed  caskets  of  truth,  which  could  only  be  opened  by  him  who  gave 
them.  It  may  be  that  He  who  chose  to  teach  men  in  these  instances  by  the 
double  gift  of  text  and  commentary,  has  chosen  to  teach  men  in  all  genera- 
tions by  the  same  means.  It  may  be  that  there  are  many  caskets  of  truth 
in  his  written  word  unsealed  to  this  day,  which  none  but  hin-iself  can  open. 
Our  instances  sufficiently  prove  that  interpretation  of  inspired  messages  by 
inspiration,  is  not  an  absurdity. 

Again,  we  may  reply,  if  a  communication  which  needs  to  be  explained  iB 
not  a  revelation,  then  the  substance  of  the  Bible,  even  as  viewed  by  Prof* 
Stuart  and  his  German  colleagues,  is  no  revelation  to  the  mass  of  mankind  J 
for  these  critics  insist  that  it  needs  an  immense  amount  of  scientific  explanar 
tion,  and  they  require,  as  we  have  seen,  many  and  large  qualifications  in  ita^ 
interpreters.  If  God  has  left  it  in  such  a  state  of  obscurity  that  it  needs  the 
commentaries  of  men,  why  may  he  not  have  left  it  also  m  need  of  the  eluci- 
dations  of  his  own  Spirit  ?  If  the  treasure-house  of  truth  is  to  be  left  locked 
at  all,  surely  God  may  as  well  keep  the  key  himself  as  give  it  to  the  literatim 

The  sophism  of  Prof.  Stuart's  argument  lies-  in  the  indefiniteness  of  the 
expression — '  a  revelation  to  men' — with  which  he  begins  his  syllogism.  '  If 
the  scriptures  (he  says)  be  a  revelation  to  men,,  then  are  they  to  be  read 
and  understood  by  men.'  The  scriptures  are  indeed  a  'revelation  to  men,' 
but  to  what  kind  of  men  ?  Not  to  all  men.  The  illiterate  cannot  receive 
them  at  all,  except  through  the  mediation  of  translators  ;  and  Prof.  Stuart 
will  be  the  last  to  admit  that  they  are  to  be  '  read  and  understood'  fully  by 
any  body  that  has  not  the  whole  armor  of  philology.  Then  on  liis  own  prin^ 
ciples  they  are  in  themselves,  without  explanation  ah  extra,  a  revelation  only 
to  a  small  class  of  men.  Why  may  we  not  carry  the  principle  a  little  farther^ 
and  say  that  the  scriptures  are  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word  a  revelation  only 
to  that  class  of  men  who  have  the  key  of  inspiration  ?  Prof.  Stuart  gain* 
nothing  for  his  position  that  inspiration  is  not  necessary  to  interpretation,  by 
saying  that  the  Bible  is  a  '  revelation  to  men,'  unless  he  means  that  it  is  s^ 
revelation  to  uninspired  men.  We  deny  that  this  proposition  without  quali' 
fication  is  true.     To  assume  it,  is  to  beg  the  whole  question. 

A  great  part  of  the  scriptures,  especially  of  the  New  Testament,  was  cer- 
tainly addressed  originally  to  inspired  men.  For  example,  John's  epistles- 
were  addressed  to  persons  of  whom  he  said — '  Ye  have  an  unction  from  the* 
Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all  things.  *  *  *  The  anointing  which  ye  have  re^ 
ceived  of  him  abideth  in  you,,  and  ye  need  not  that  any  man  teach  you ;  but 
as  the  same  anointing  teacheth  you  of  all  things,  and  is  truth,  and  is  no  lie,^ 
and  even  as  it  hath  taught  you,  ye^  shall  abide  in  him.'  1  John  2:  20,  27 r 
These  beUcvers,  though  laymen,  manifestly  had  that  same  Comforter  which 
Christ  promised  to  his  immediate  followers.  They  were  inspired.  So  the 
churches  to  whom  Paul  wroto  wero  enriched  with  the  various  gifts  of  the? 


t  ■ 

t 

'GtJiDE  01*  iNTERPilE'f AttOJTi  S7 

Bpirlt,  and  abounded  in  prophecies,  revelations,  and  all  the  fruits  of  inspira^ 
tion.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  whole  New  Testament  was  written  for  the 
church,  and  not  for  the  world  ;  and  for  a  church  too  that  was  confessedly 
filled  with  supernatural  illumination.  What  right  then  has  Prof.  Stuart  to 
assert  roundly  that  '  the  scriptures  are  a  revelation  to  men,'  meaning  as  he 
Inanifestly  does  that  thcy  are  designed  and  adapted  as  a  whole  to  be  read 
ftnd  understood  by  men  without  spiritual  illumination  ?  Are  all  sorts  of  men 
on  a  level  with  the  spirituahsts  of  the  priuiitive  church  ?  Did  the  Holy 
Ghost  give  those  spiritualists  no  advantage  over  the  worldj  in  respect  to 
understanding  the  scriptures  addressed  to  them  ?  If  they  had  any  special 
clairvoyance,  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  the  epistles  written  to  them  were 
constructed  without  reference  to  that  clairvoyance ^  and  were  leveled  to  the 
intelligence  of  ordinary  men  ?  If  the  apostles  wrote  appropriately  for  in- 
spired men,  as  it  is  to  be  presumed  they  did,  then  it  is  certain  that  their 
writings  transcend  the  understandings  of  uninspired  men,  and  require  the  help 
of  inspiration  for  their  interpretation.  It  is  ridiculous  arrogance  for  mere 
intellectualists,  however  expert  in  criticism,  to  pretend  that  they  are  Compe- 
tent to  judge  and  interpret  writmgs  addressed  and  adapted  to  men  filled  witb 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

It  is  plain  that  the  Bible  is  not  '  in  itself  a  revelation  to  men.'  It  caiitiot 
reach  the  human  mind  at  all  without  help  from  without  itself.  At  the  low- 
est, it  requires  in  those  who  are  to  be  instructed  by  it,  a  previous  knowledge 
of  letters.  To  men  who  cannot  read,  (and  they  are  probably  a  majority  of 
the  human  race,)  it  is  no  revelation. 

The  principle  being  admitted  then  that  it  is  a  revelation  only  to  iiien  in  a 
certain  advanced  stage  of  inteUigence,  the  question  arises.  What  degree  of 
intelHgence  is  necessary  to  a  full  understanding  of  it  ?  Does  it  unfold  all 
its  treasures  to  those  who  are  merely  able  to  read  ?  Certainly  not.  Many 
of  its  narratives  and  some  of  its  simpler  doctrines  and  precepts  are  doubtless 
intelligible  to  this  class,^— enough  to  give  them  an  introduction  to  the  school 
of  heavenly  truth.  But  we  are  safe  in  assuming  that,  in  the  view  of  the 
learned  men  whose  anti-spiritual  theories  We  are  combating,  the  Bible  as  a^ 
whole  is  constructed  for  a  far  higher  degree  of  intelligence  than  that  implied 
in  the  mere  ability  to  read.  An  acquaintance  with  its  original  languages^ 
with  oriental  life,  with  the  laws  of  interpretation,  and  with  the  commentaries 
of  learned  men,  unlocks  vast  stores  of  truth  which  are  inaccessible  to  ordi' 
nary  readers.  Thus  far  then,  the  apocalyptical  power  of  the  Bible  increases 
as  the  intelligence  of  its  readers  increase.  / 

But  the  scale  of  possible  human  intelligence  ranges  from  the  mere  ability 
to  read,  to  the  perfect  clairvoyance  of  inspiration.  The  intelligence  of  the 
literati  is  only  midway  between  these  extremes.  Now^  must  we  believe  thair 
tiie  apocalyptical  power  of  the  Bible  ceases  to  increase,  at  the  highest  poinfe 
of  literary  intelhgence  ?  Are  its  treasures  all  open  to  those  who  have  atr 
command  the  apparatus  of  criticism  ?  Has  it  no  mysteries  to  disclose  pe- 
culiarly to  those  who  have  attained  that  higher  intelligence  which  comes  by 
inspiration  ?  Assuredly  God  has  provided  in  his  revelation,  for  all  readers 
ibeir  seasonable  food ;  milk  for  babes,  and  strong  meat  for  men  j  simple  thing* 


?S  GUiDiS  01?  INilKRPfeETA'tlO:^. 

for  the  ignorant ;  deeper  truths  for  the  learned ;  and  still  deeper  mystericS 
for  the  inspired.  The  Bible  is  no  revelation  to  those  who  cannot  read  ;  it  is 
t,  revelation  of  certain  introductory  truths  to  those  who  can  only  read  ;  it  is  a 
revelation  of  much  curioits  wisdom  to  those  who  can  read  with  the  help  of 
himian  learning ;  and  it  is  a  revelation  of  the  deep  things  of  God  to  those 
who  can  read  with  the  help  of  the  Spirit  of  truth*  This  is  the  sense,  and 
the  only  sense  in  w'hich  the  Bible  is  a  'revelation  to  mens* 

the  supposition  that  it  is  merely  a  revelation  to  uninspired  iii6n,  and  has 
n6  peculiar  disclosures  for  any  class  above  the  literati,  is  utterly  incongruous 
"with  the  circumstances  of  its  origui^  The  reader  will  recollect  that  Keil 
says—"  He  who  desires  to  understand  and  interpret  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  must,  first  of  all,  acquire  some  historic  knowledge  of  the  authof* 
'of  the  book,  and  of  the  state  of  things  existing  when  it  was  written."  We 
Accept  the  rule^  but  We  propose  an  application  of  it  which  the  learned  writer 
probably  did  not  contemplate.  Who  is  the  niothor  qf  the  Bible?  If  '  all 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration,'  (which  will  not  be  denied  by  those  with 
"whom  we  are  dealing,)  then  God  is  the  author,  of  whom  some  '  historic 
knowledge'  must  be  acquired  by  one  who  wishes  to  form  a  correct  idea  of  the 
Bible.  The  question  which  stands  '  first  of  all'  is  not,  What  kind  of  a  book 
would  Matthew  or  Paul  write  ?  but,  What  kind  of  a  book  would  God  dictate  ? 
Is  it  to  be  presumed  that  the  whole  of  a  revelation,  emanating  from  such  a 
person  as  we  know  God  to  be,  would  be  levol  to  the  intelhgenc^  of  mere 
literary  amateurs  ?  Let  Paul  answer.  *  What  man  (says  he)  knoweth  the 
things  of  a  man  save  the  spirit  of  man  which  is  in  him  •?  Even  so  the  things 
of  God  knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God.  *  *  *  The  natural  man  f  e^ 
Ceiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him^ 
neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned-.'  Our 
^  historic'  or  even  intuitive  knowledge  of  the  author  of  the  Bible  would  lead 
us  to  expect  mysteries  in  it  beyond  the  depth  of  uninspired  men. 

Let  us  now  apply  the  second  requirement  of  Keil's  rule.  "  He  who  de-- 
ftireS  to  understand  and  interpret  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  must  ao* 
quire  some  historic  knowledge  *  *  *  of  the  state  of  things  existing  when  tJiei/ 
were  written.^ ^  What  then  was  the  state  of  things  when  the  New  Testa- 
toient  was  written  ?  We  have  already  suggested  that  the  church  of  God,  to 
\vhich  the  New  Testament  was  addressed,  was  in  the  full  glory  of  the  Pente* 
tjostal  baptism' — flooded  with  spiritual  illmnination.  And  wo  aver  that  of  all 
^ecifications  concerning '  the  state  of  things'  at  that  time,  this  is  the  most  im- 
portant. By  this  fact  we  must  estimate  the  profundity  of  the  New  Testa* 
talent,  and  the  degree  aiid  nature  of  the  intelligence  necessary  to  its  interpre- 
tation. Yet  we  are  not  aware  that  this  fact  is  taken  into  account  at  all  by 
literary  commentators.  It  certainly  cannot  have  any  great  weight  with  those 
who  hold  with  Stuart  that  inspiration  is  not  a  necessary  qualification  of  an  in- 
terpreter. Here  we  have  a  book  which  was  confessedly  dictated  by  God,  and 
addressed  to  men  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  yet  the  learned  professors 
•of  Germany  and  Andover  teach  their  young  theologues  to  grapple  with  it,  as 
though  it  were  merely  written  from  men  to  men  !  We  cannot  conceive  of  a 
ttioro  outrageous  violation  of  Keil's  leading  precept. 


GUIDE  OE  DJTEKPBETATIOS,  W 

The  Bible  was  written  by  men  to  men ;  but  thia  is  not  all  that  is  true  of  it. 
This  describes  its  bod^.  As  to  its  soul  it  was  a  communication  from  God, 
specially  (though  not  exclusively)  addressed  and  adapted  to  an  inspired 
church.  Jesus  Christ  as  to  his  body  was  born  of  a  woman,  and  appeared  aa 
a  man  among  men.  But  had  he  no  higher  nature  than  that  which  was  thus 
identified  with  humanity  ?  Would  a  man  be  in  a  fit  position  to  understand 
and  interpret  him,  who  should  recognize  in  him  nothing  but  the  earthly  part 
of  his  being  ?  The  Bible  as  well  as  Jesus  Christ  is  called  the  '  word  of  God,* 
and  in  an  important  sense  it  is  true]of  the  Bible  as  it  is  of  Jesus  Christ,  that 
in  it  human  and  divine  elements  are  blended.  As  Jesus  Christ  by  his  incar- 
nation opened  communication  between  the  Father  and  the  lowest  regions  of 
humanity,  so  the  Bible,  in  its  scope  of  truth,  extends  from  the  highest  myste- 
ries of  heaven  to  the  simplest  earthly  truths.  An  interpreter  equipped  only 
with  the  qualifications  prescribed  by  Keil,  Ernesti  and  Stuart,  may  be  able  to 
expound  much  that  belongs  to  the  human  element  of  the  Bible  ;  but  one  who 
will  handle  its  divinity^  must  have  higher  qualifications — as  much  higher  as  the 
Boul  is  above  the  body,  or  rather  as  the  eternal  Son  of  God  is  above  the  human 
fbrm  that  was  bom  of  Mary. 

Another  precept  of  Keil  is  that  "  the  interpreter  must  possess  a  knowledge 
of  the  things  respecting  which  the  booh  treats^  What  are  the  most  impor- 
tant things  of  which  the  Bible  treats  ?  Surely  not  those  with  which  a  man 
may  become  acquainted  by  studying  philology,  geography,  chronology,  civil 
history,  and  archaeology.  The  human  element  of  the  Bible  may  be  illustra- 
ted by  these  sciences.  But  the  things  which  chiefly  occupy  that  book  and 
distinguish  it  as  a  divine  revelation,  are  of  a  spiritual  nature.  It  treats  of 
supernatural  powers,  of  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  prophetical 
illuminations,  of  regeneration,  of  localities  and  transactions  in  the  spiritual 
world.  A  man  can  be  but  a  very  superficial  interpreter  of  the  Bible,  how- 
ever learned  he  may  be  in  the  usual  way,  if  he  has  not  an  extensive  and  fa- 
miliar acquaintance  with  these  things.  Suppose  a  professor  of  Mesmerism 
should  write  a  manual  for  a  class  of  pupils  already  initiated  by  his  own  per- 
sonal labors  into  an  experimental  acquaintance  with  the  elements  of  the  sci- 
ence. Would  any  one  be  fit  to  translate  that  book  from  a  foreign  language, 
and  interpret  it,  without  any  practical  acquaintance  with  the  phenomena  and 
philosophy  of  Mesmerism  ?  However  minutely  he  might  be  versed  in  the 
topography  and  history  of  the  wter's  birth  place,  and  m  the  philology  of  his 
language,  he  would  still  lack  the  most  important  of  all  qualifications  of  an  ex- 
positor. But  the  Bible  is  a  manual  dictated  by  God,  addressed  to  the  pupils 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  treating  of  spiritual  phenomena.  Then  no  man  ia 
competent  to  interpret  it,  who  is  not  a  pupil  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  practi- 
cally versed  in  spiritual  science. 

Mental  sympathy  with  the  writers  and  original  readers  of  the  scriptures  is 
an  essential  qualification  of  a  good  interpreter.  Even  the  critics  of  Germa- 
ny and  Andover  insist  that  we  must  place  ourselves  back  in  Bible  times,  and 
€is  far  as  possible  in  the  exact  position  of  those  who  wrote  and  read  the  origi- 
nal scriptures,  in  order  to  understand  and  expound  them.  But  how  can  an 
unspiritual  man  sympathize  with  the  writers  and  original  readers  of  such  spir- 


40  GUIDE  OP  INTEJIPRBTATION. 

itual  communications  as,  for  instance,  the  epistles  of  Paul  ?  How  can  an  un- 
rcgenerate  man  be  fit  to  expound  the  discourses  of  Christ  and  John  on  regen- 
eration ?  And  if  regeneration  is  necessary  as  a  qualification  for  interpreting 
fully  the  scriptures  relating  to  regeneration,  then  inspiration  is  necessary  ; 
for  regeneration  is  the  efiect  of  the  infusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  is 
inspiration. 

A  mere  inspection  of  the  -Writings  of  the  prophets — the  apocalypse,  for  in- 
stance— is  sufficient  to  convince  any  sober  man  that  the  things  with  which  one 
must  be  acquauitcd,  in  order  to  interpret  them,  are  beyond  the  ken  of  human 
learnmg.  The  ignorance  and  incredulity  of  the  natural  man  in  regard  to  the 
tilings  of  the  invisible  world,  is  the  manifest  cause  of  the  miserable  perplexity 
in  which  the  learned  w^orld  is  groping  to  this  day,  about  the  very  plainest 
prophecies  in  the  Bible — those  relating  to  the  Second  Coming  of  Christ. 
And  this  ignorance  and  incredulity  can  be  removed  only  by  inspiration.  Men 
will  never  be  able  to  understand  and  interpret  that  large  portion  of  the  pro- 
phecies which  Isolates  to  the  inner  mansions  of  the  universe,  till  they  have- 
spiritual  access  to  those  mansions  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Nor  does  the  difficulty  of  interpreting  the  prophecies,  which  makes  inspi- 
ration necessary,  lie  wholly  in  the  nature  of  the  subjects  treated  of.  The 
Holy  Ghost  has  certainly  taken  the  liberty  of  using  language  ui  ways  peculiar 
to  itself.  For  instance,  God  said  by  Malachi~^J  will  send  you  Elijah  the 
projjhet  before  the  coming  of  the  great  and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord.'  Now 
who  would  have  ever  dared,  on  the  strength  of  any  ordiiaary  law  of  language, 
to  have  appUed  this  prediction  to  John  the  Baptist  ?  John  himself  did  not 
so  apply  it.  (John  1:  21.)  But  Christ  saw  and  declared  that  'this  was  the- 
Ehas  which  was  to  come  V  The  expression  'Elijah  the  projphef  means  lit- 
erally the  person  who  ascended  to  heaven  m  a  chariot  of  fire.  But  John  the 
Baptist  certainly  was  not  that  person.  Shall  we  say  then  that  expression  is. 
to  be  understood  figuratively — that  the  meaning  is,  '  I  will  send  you  a  pro- 
phet like  Elijah?'  The  language  of  the  prediction  is  too  simple  and  positive 
to  allow  such  a  construction.  Christ  did  not  say  that  John  was  like  Elijah^ 
but  that  he  w<zs  Elijah.  (Matt.  11:  14.)  The  Hteral  and  the  figurative 
senses  then  are  both  excluded ;  and  these  are  the  only  senses  recognized  in 
the  ^lsus  loquendl  of  the  world.  Yet  it  is  evident  to  any  one  who  knowa 
enough  of  spiritual  philosophy  to  perceive  that  the  spirit  of  one  person  may; 
he  revealed  in  another,  that  the  prediction  of  Malachi  and  the  declaration  of 
its  fulfilment  by  Christ  were  strictly  true,  not  literally,  nor  figuratively,  but 
spiritually,  John  the  Baptist  came  '  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Ehjah/ 
(Luke  1:  17,)  i.  e.,  he  was  identical  with  Elijah  not  in  person  but  in  spirit.. 
Elijah  was  manifested,  not  personally,  nor  yet  in  any  figm^ative  unreal  sense, 
but  as  a  spirit  actuating  the  person  of  John  the  Baptist.  This  is  the  only 
method  of  reconciling  the  fulfilment  with  the  prediction  without  doing  vio- 
lence ;  and  it  is  a  satisfactory  method  ;  but  it  is  a  method  that  introduces  a 
new  element  into  the  science  of  language.  We  learn  from  it  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  uses  words  in  a  sense  that  may  be  called  spiritual^  and  is  distinct  from 
the  literal  and  the  figurative  senses.  Tliis  example  is  but  a  specimen  of  aa 
extensive  usage  in  the  Bible. 


GUIDE  OP  INTERPRETATION.  41 

The  truth  is  that  the  Bible  brings  to  view  things  and  relations  for  which 
no  human  language  was  constructed.  It  must  therefore  of  necessity  use  the 
language  of  men  in  new  ways.  It  is  written  'not  in  words  which  man's  wis- 
dom teacheth,  but  in  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth.'  We  must  look 
therefore  to  the  GivcF  of  it,  and  not  to  lexicons  and  laws  of  language,  as  the 
ultimate  guide  of  interpretation.  Prof.  Stuart  saj^s — '  If  the  same  laws  of 
language  are  not  observed  in  this  revelation  as  are  common  to  men,  then 
they  have  no  guide  to  the  right  understanding  of  the  scriptures.'  He  means 
that  they  have  no  guide  in  their  own  independent  wisdom  ;  for  he  adds — 
'and  an  interp-eter  needs  inspiration  as  much  as  the  original  writer.'  This 
is  just  what  we  insist  upon ;  and  we  see  no  very  alarming  consequences  that 
are  to  result  from  it.  What  good  would  come  from  men's  being  independent 
of  God  in  respect  to  the  understanding  of  his  word,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  per- 
ceive. But  we  can  see  that  there  may  be  a  very  great  benefit  in  their  being 
placed  under  a  necessity  of  seeking  the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  solving  the 
interesting  problems  which  the  Bible  lays  before  them. 

It  is  worthy  of  the  consideration  of  those  who  think  that  the  interpretation 
of  inspired  writings  by  inspiration  is  an  absurdity  or  a  foolish  superfluity,  that 
they  themselves,  in  receivuig  the  New  Testament  interpretations  of  Old  Tes- 
tament predictions,  lay  at  the  very  foundation  of  their  views  of  prophecy,  in- 
spired interpretations  of  inspired  writings.  Christ  and  Peter  and  Paul  are 
our  leaders  in  the  interpretation  of  the  prophets.  We  are  absolutely  depen- 
dent on  their  guidance  in  determining  the  sense  of  many  of  the  most  inter- 
esting passages  of  the  Old  Testament.  For  instance,  who  would  undertake, 
without  their  assistance,  to  determine  which  of  the  Psalms  are  Messianic  ? 
But  these  men  were  inspired  ;  and  their  interpretations  are  appealed  to  even 
by  the  learned  as  inspired  interpretations.  We  may  ask  Prof.  Stuart,  then, 
whether  their  inspiration  was  or  was  not  necessary  to  qualify  them  to  inter- 
pret the  prophecies  which  they  handled  ?  If  it  was,  then  those  prophecies, 
according  to  his  reasoning,  were  '  no  revelations.'  According  to  our  view, 
they  were  no  revelation  to  uninspired  men,  and  were  not  designed  to  be. 
And  we  believe  that  this  is  true  of  a  large  portion  of  the  rest  of  the  Bible  ; 
and  of  course  that  inspiration  is  now,  as  it  manifestly  was  in  the  times  of  the 
New  Testament,  an  essential  quahfication  of  a  finished  biblical  interpreter.      y/ 

Prof.  Stuart  lays  down  the  following  rule  for  the  interpretation  of  t^pes  : 

"  If  it  be  asked,  How  far  are  we  to  consider  the  Old  Testament  as  typical?  1  should 
answer  without  any  hesitation  ;  Just  so  much  of  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  typical,  as  the 
New  Testament  affirms  to  be  so;  and  no  more.  The  fact,  that  any  thing  or  event  under 
the  Old  Testament  di^;pensation  was  designed  to  prefigure  something  under  the  new, 
can  be  known  to  us  only  by  revelation;  and  of  course,  all  that  is  not  designated  by  di- 
vine authority  as  typical,  can  never  be  made  so,  by  any  authority  less  than  that  which 
guided  the  writers  of  the  scriptures."  Ernesti,  p.  17. 

Now  types  may  be  regarded  as  prophecies  expressed  by  things,  instead  of 
words.  There  is  no  reason  why  typical  prophecies  may  not  be  understood 
and  interpreted  as  easily  as  verbal.  Yet  in  regard  to  the  former  Prof. 
Stuart  insists  that  we  must  have  inspired  interpretations,  and  allows  no  au- 
thority to  any  other ;  while  ui  regard  to  the  latter,  he  gives  no  place  to  v^ 
inspiration  as  one  of  the  necessary  qualifications  of  an  mterpreter ! 
5 


4ii  GUIDE  9P  INTERPRETATION. 

^The  ftnti-spiritual  theory  of  hermcneutics  la  based  on  two  fundamental  er- 
rors. The  first  relates  to  the  design  of  the  Bible.  It  is  assumed  by  Prof* 
Stuart  that  the  Bible  is  designed  to  be  a  revelation  in  itself^  and  in  fact  the 
onli/  revelation  from  God  to  man.  Whereas  we  learn  from  that  book  itself 
that  God's  principal  medium  of  communication  with  the  church,  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  is  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Bible  is  to  be  regarded  as  a 
text-book,  designed,  not  to  supersede^  but  to  assist  the  personal  instructions 
of  the  Paraclete.  Prof.  Stuart  pubhshes  Ernesti's  manual  of  interpretation, 
and  places  it  in  the  hands  of  his  exegetical  class.  Does  he  mean  thereby  to 
8upei*sede  his  own  lectures  ?  Suppose  his  pupils  should  say — '  You  have 
given  us  a  manual ;  we  have  therefore  no  further  need  of  your  instructions ; 
if  this  book  needs  to  be  expounded  and  illustrated  by  you,  it  is  no  manual  at 
all.*  Would  he  not  say  to  them — '  I  placed  that  book  in  your  hands  merely 
as  all  auxiliary  to  my  lectures.  If  you  are  to  convert  it  into  a  substitute  for 
my  personal  instructions,  and  turn  me  out  of  the  lecture-room,  you  would  do 
better  to  bum  the  book  at  once.'  So,  to  make  the  Bible  a  substitute  for  the 
teachings  of  the  Spirit  of  truth,  or  to  account  it  the  principle  medium  of 
divuie  instruction,  and  the  Spirit  only  secondary,  or  to  use  it  in  any  way 
other  than  as  a  text-book  auxihary  to  the  personal  instructions  of  God,  is  to 
pervert  it  from  its  true  design,  and  grossly  to  abuse  the  Giver  of  it. 

The  second  error  relates  to  the  normal  condition  of  man.  It  is  assumed 
ty  the  anti-spirituahsts  that  meii,  properly  so  called,  and  even  Christian  men 
are  not  to  expect  the  direct  teachings  of  the  Spirit.  Inspiration  is  consider- 
ed an  anomalous  condition  of  humanity,  restricted  to  a  favored  few  in  ancient 
times,  not  accessible  to  all,  and  therefore  not  to  be  regarded  as  the  appropri- 
ate condition  of  those  who  are  to  receive  the  scriptures.  But  to  ns  it  is  evi- 
dent, that  a  state  of  personal  spiritual  communication  with  God  (which  is  in 
fact  a  state  of  inspiration)  was  the  state  of  Adam  in  Eden,  will  he  the  state 
of  the  redeemed  in  heaven,  and  is  the  state  of  Christians  in  this  w^orld.  We 
consider  this  therefore  as  the  natural,  healthy  condition  of  the  race- — that  for 
which  human  nature  was  designed,  and  with  a  view  to  which  it  was  construc- 
ted ;  and  the  uninspired  state  as  a  diseased  abnormal  condition.  To  us  there* 
fore  it  seems  perfectly  reasonable  that  the  Bible — at  least  in  all  its  deeper 
parts — should  be  adapted  to  men  more  or  less  advanced  in  a  state  of 
inspiration. 

It  is  not  to  be  understood  from  what  we  have  said  that  we  deny  the  abihty 
of  uninspired  men  to  interpret  those  parts  of  the  Bible  which  may  be  said  to 
belong  to  its  humanity ;  or  that  we  undervalue  philology  and  other  resources 
of  ordinary  criticism.  We  hold  simply  that  miinspired  men,  with  all  their 
resources,  are  utterly  incompetent  to  interpret  those  parts  of  scripture  which 
&re  concerned  with  the  '  deep  things  of  God  ;'  and  that  the  Paraclete,  in- 
stead of  the  church  as  the  Papists  hold,  or  the  philologists  as  Protestants 
liold)  ia  the  ultimate  arbiter  of  bibhcal  interpretation* 


§  7.    OBJECTIONS  OF  ANTI-SPIRITUALISTS. 

It  will  be  objected  against  the  views  presented  in  several  preceding  arti. 
cles,  that  the  idea  of  open  communication  with  God  as  the  ultimate  ground 
of  faith  and  source  of  interpretation,  is  the  very  charter  of  all  fanaticism. 
To  this  general  charge,  we  may  oppose  the  general  reply,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  existence  of  God,  (which  is  back  of  the  idea  of  communication  with  him) 
is  the  more  radical  germ  of  all  fanaticism  ;  and  yet  that  doctrine  is  not  the 
less  credible  and  wholesome.  Or  we  may  appeal  to  the  undeniable  fact,  that, 
belief  in  immediate  access  to  God  has  been  honored  by  patriarchs,  prophets, 
and  apostles,  as  much  as  it  has  been  disgraced  by  fanatics  and  impostors. 

But  this  sweeping  objection  often  assumes  more  specific  forms.  We  find 
men  bold  enough  to  affirm  that  sensible  communication  with  the  spirit  of  God 
is  impossible,  and  of  course  that  all  pretensions  to  it  are  delusive,  and  all  as^ 
pirations  after  it  presumptuous.  The  following  extract  from  Coleridge's 
^^Lids  to  Reflection'  is  a  specimen  of  the  reasoning  and  assertion  to  which  we 
refer,  and  on  which  we  wish  to  remark : 

"  Were  it  my  task  to  form  the  mind  ofa  young'  man  desirons  to  establish  his  ophiionx 
and  belief  on  solid  principles,  and  in  the  light  of  distinct  understand i^ig-,  I  would  com^ 
mence  his  theological  studies,  or,  at  least,  the  most  important  part  of  them  respecting 
the  aids  which  religion  promises  in  our  attempts  to  realize  the  ideas  of  morality,  by 
bringing  together  all  the  passages  scattered  throughout  the  writings  of  Swift  and  But^ 
ler,  that  bear  on  enthusir.sm,  spiritual  operations,  and  pretenses  to  the  gifts  of  th^ 
Spirit,  vyith  the  whol.e  train  of  new  lights,  raptures,  experiences,  and  the  like.  For  all 
that  the  richest  wit,  in  intimate  union  with  profbund  sense  and  steady  observation,  can 
«!upply  on  these  topics,  is  to  be  found  in  the  works  of  these  satirists  ;  though  unhappily 
alloyed  with  much  that  can  only  tend  to  pollute  the  imagination. 

Without  stopping  to  estimate  the  degree  of  carricature  in  the  portraits  sketched  by 
these  bold  masters,  and  without  attempting  to  determine  in  how  many  of  the  enthusiasts 
brought  forward  by  them  in  proof  of  the  influence  of  false  doctrines,  a  constitutional 
insanity  that  would  probably  have  shown  itself  in  some  other  Ibrm,  w^ould  be  the  truer 
solution,  I  would  direct  my  pupil's  attention  to  one  feature  common  to  the  whole  group 
—the  pretence,  namely,  of  possessing,  or  &  belief  and  expectation  grounded  on  other 
men's  assurances  of  their  possessing,  an  immediate  consciovsness,  a  sensible  experience  of 
the  Spirit,  in  and  during  its  operation  on  the  soul.  It  is  not  enough  that  you  grant  them  a 
consciousness  of  the  gifts  and  graces  infused,  or  an  assurance  of  the  spiritual  origin  of 
the  same,  grounded  on  their  correspondence  to  the  scripture  promises,  and  their  conv 
formity  to  the  idea  of  the  divine  giver.  No  I  they  all  alike,  it  will  be  tbuqd,  lay  clain) 
(or  at  least  Ipok  forward)  to  an  inioard  perception  of  the  Spirit,  and  of  its  operating. 

Whatever  must  be  misrepresented  in  order  to  be  ridiculed,  is  in  fact  not  ridiculed  ; 
but  the  thing  substituted  for  it.  It  is  a  satire  on  something  else,  coupled  with  a  lie  on 
the  part  of  the  sqitirist,  who  knowing,  or  having  the  means  of  knowing  the  truth,  cl>080 
to  call  one  thing  by  the  name  of  another.  The  pretensions  to  the  supernatural,  pillorie4 
by  Butler,  sent  to  bedlam  by  Swift,  and  (on  their  re-appearance  in  public)  gibbeted  by 
Warburton,  and  anatomized  by  Bishop  Laving(on,  one  and  all  have  this  fortli^ir  esseur 
tial  character,  that  the  Spirit  is  made  the  immediate  object  of  sense  or  sensation.  Whether 
the  spiritual  presence  and  agency  are  supposed  cognizable  by  indescribable  feeling  or 
unimaginable  vision  by  some  specific  visual  energy;  whether  seen  or  heard,  or  touched, 
smelt,  and  lasted — for  in  those  vast  storehouses  of  fanatical  assertion,  the  Vjoluroes  of 
ecclesiastical  history  and  auto-biography,  instances  are  qpt  wanting  of  the  Ihree  latter 
extravagances, — this  variety  in  the  mode  may  render  the  several  pretensions  more  or 
less  offensive  to  the  taste;  but  with  the  same  absurdity  for  the  reason,  this  beingr  dep- 
rived from  a  contradiction  in  terms  common  and  radical  to  them  all  alike,  the  assumpr 
tion  of  a  something  essentially  supersensiial,  that  is  neyerl.hele^s  the  object  of  seijsg^ 
that  is,  not  supersensual."  jp.  Jig, 


44  OBJECTIONS  OF  ANTI-SPIRITUALISTS. 

The  enthusiasts  alluded  to,  ought  not  to  be  charged  with  a  '  contradiction 
iw  terms,'*  for  they  certainly  never  use  the  terms  ascribed  to  them  by  Cole- 
ridge. Who  ever  heard  of  an  enthusiast,  who  first  defined  the  spirit  as  some- 
thing '  essentially  supersensual,'  and  then  affirmed  that  it  is  an  object  of 
sense  ?  The  definition  belongs  to  Coleridge,  not  to  the  enthusiasts  ;  and  the 
contradiction  is  between  their  doctrine  and  his  definition,  not  between  the 
terms  of  their  doctruie.  Coleridge  assumes,  that  the  spirit  is  '  essentially 
supersensual,'  and  then  assumes  that  every  body  admits  his  assumption — the 
enthusiasts  of  whom  he  is  speaking  among  the  rest — and  so  lays  the  founda- 
tion of  his  charge  of  self-contradiction,  in  a  twofold  assumption  of  his  own  ! 

We  are  not  disposed  to  admit  that  the  spirit  is  '  essentially  supersensual,* 
in  the  sense  which  Coleridge  attaches  to  that  expression.  We  agree  that  it 
is  not  cognizable  by  the  five  bodily  senses.  But  this  does  not  satisfy  Cole- 
ridge. He  denies  that  the  spirit  is  immediately  cognizable  by  any  'inward 
perception,'  by  '  consciousness  or  any  sensible  experience,'  by  spiritual '  feel- 
ing or  vision ;'  and  this  is  what  he  means  by  the  word  super  sensual.  He 
would  have  expressed  himself  more  accurately,  if  he  had  used  some  such  term 
a$  super-perceptible,  which  excludes  every  mode  of  cognizance,  spiritual  as 
well  as  sensual.  We  object  to  calling  all  possible  modes  of  direct  perception, 
sensual,  for  that  word  has  commonly  been  used  in  connection  with  the  corpo- 
real senses,  in  contrast  to  the  word  spiritual,  and  so  has  contracted  a  con- 
temptible meaning.  We  believe  that  the  Spirit  is  super-sensual,  in  the  ^^rop- 
er  meaning  of  that  word,  i.  e.  that  it  is  above  the  cognizance  of  the  corporeal 
senses,  but  we  do  not  believe  that  it  is  super-perceptible. 

It  is  certauily  too  much  to  assume  that  the  five  bodily  senses  are  the  only 
modes  of  direct  perception,  and  call  all  other  supposed  modes,  '  indescriba- 
ble' and  '  imimaginable,'  as  though  they  were  chimerical.  By  which  of  the 
five  senses  does  a  man  perceive  his  own  thoughts  ?  He  certainly  neither 
sees,  nor  hears,  nor  touches,  nor  smells,  nor  tastes  them,  and  yet  he  per- 
ceives them,  and  that  not  merely  by  their  effects,  but  directly.  In  fact,  the 
mode  of  perception  by  which  a  man  takes  cognizance  of  his  own  thoughts, 
or  which  is  the  same  thing,  of  his  own  spirit,  is  the  most  direct  conceivable  ; 
for  whereas  in  all  external  perception  the  perceiving  power  acts  through 
material  organs,  which  are  to  it  as  the  telescope  to  the  eye,  in  reflection  or 
consciousness,  the  perceiving  power  acts  without  any  intervening  organ ;  the 
man  perceives  liis  own  thoughts,  or  his  own  spirit,  as  it  were,  with  the  naked 
eye.  If  it  is  admitted  (as  w^e  suppose  it  is)  that  the  five  senses  are  only 
five  modes  by  which  one  p)erceiving  power,  called  the  mind  or  spirit,  takes 
cognizance  of  the  outward- world,  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  that  one 
perceiving  power  has  no  'visual  energy'  in  its  naked  independent  state,  and 
with  relation  to  objects  in  immediate  contact  with,  and  homogeneous  to  itself? 
As  well  might  we  say,  that  a  man  in  a  room  with  five  windows,  has  no  visual 
power  but  that  which  he  employs  in  looking  abroad.  Whereas,  in  fact,  his 
perception  of  things  within  the  room  is  more  direct  and  naked,  than  any 
possible  perception  of  things  outside  tlie  windows.  So  it  is  when  spirit  looks 
on  spirit. 

Consciousness  is  admitted  to  be  the  very  highest  kind  of  evidence  ;  more 


OBJECTIONS  OF  ANTI-SPIRITUALISTS.  45 

8ui*e  than  that  of  the  senses ;  and  consciousness  is  nothing  but  self-percep- 
tion, i.  e.  spirit  looking  at  spirit.  There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  things 
so  far  as  we  can  judge  abstractly,  which  should  preclude  a  man's  spirit  from 
perceiving  any  other  spirit  as  well  as  his  own.  If  a  man  can  perceive  by 
direct  sensation,  his  own  thoughts,  (as  he  does  in  memory,)  why  may  we  not 
suppose,  that  under  favorable  circumstances,  by  a  great  increase  of  spiritual 
energy,  or  by  special  intimacy  of  spiritual  fellowship,  he  might  in  the  same 
way  perceive  the  thoughts  of  others?  There  is  abundant  evidence  that  this 
actually  takes  place  in  the  case  of  the  subjects  of  animal  magnetism.  It  is 
said  of  Jesus  that  he  'perceived  tlie  thoughts*  of  the  people  around  him ; 
and  the  power  of  'discerning  spirits'  was  one  of  the  gifts  of  the  primitive 
church.  Spirits  in  general,  then,  are  not  super-perceptible  ;  and  we  have 
no  reason  to  believe  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  an  exception  to  this  principle. 
The  metaphysical  argument  on  this  subject,  so  far  as  it  goes,  would  lead  us  to 
presume  that  men  in  a  suitable  state  of  spirituality,  may  perceive  the  Spirit 
of  God,  even  more  sensibly  and  nakedly  than  any  material  object. 

We  will  now  appeal  more  directly  to  the  Bible  for  evidence  on  the  point 
in  question.  And  in  the  first  place,  we  would  ask  those  who,  like  Locke  and 
Coleridge,  still  maintain  the  sensual  maxim  of  the  heathen  logician — nihil  in 
intellectu  quod  nan  prius  in  sensu^  [nothing  was  ever  in  the  intellect,  which 
was  not  first  in  the  sense,  i.  e.  in  the  corporeal  senses,]  by  which  of  the  five 
senses  men  perceived  those  spiritual  thuigs,  which  were  manifested  in  the 
visions  which  abound  in  the  records  of  scripture  ?  For  instance,  when  Paul 
was  caught  up  to  the  third  heaven,  and  hnew  not  whether  he  tvas  in  the  body 
or  out,  which  of  his  corporeal  senses  perceived  the  things  which  he  reports 
himself  to  have  seen  and  heard  ?  or  are  we  to  beheve  that  his  report  is  a 
muthos  or  fable,  and  that  he  actually  perceived  nothing  but  the  phantoms 
of  his  imagination,  which  originally  entered  his  mind  by  his  corporeal  senses  ? 
In  a  word,  are  angels,  disembodied  souls,  and  all  celestial  things,  as  well  as 
the  Spirit,  supersensual  in  the  sense  of  super-percep)tible  ?  If  they  are  per- 
ceptible, and  yet  not  by  the  corporeal  senses,  is  it  not  certain  that  man  is 
capable  of  an  '  inward  visual  energy,^  adapted  to  the  perception  of  spiritual 
substances  ? 

Again,  if  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  are  cognizable  only  by  the  '  gifts 
and  graces  infused'  by  it,  how  shall  we  explain  the  process  of  inspiration  f 
When  the  '  word  of  the  Lord'  came  to  the  prophets,  it  was  certainly  the 
'  immediate  object'  of  a  sense  of  some  kuid.  So  when  '  the  Spirit  bade* 
Peter  go  to  Cornelius,  (Acts  10:  19,)  who  can  doubt  that  he  heard  in  some 
way,  the  words  which  are  reported  ?  The  sound  as  of  a  mighty  rushing 
wind,  which  came  from  heaven  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  was  certainly  pro- 
duced by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  as  certainly  was  an  object  of  sensation. 

The  Spirit  is  represented  ui  scripture,  as  a  life  given  to  men,  and  by  their 
faith  received  into  their  life.  Is  it  conceivable  that  the  soul  should  receive 
life  and  not  feel  it,  or  perceive  it  in  any  way  but  by  its  objective  results  ? 
External  observers  may  uideed  know  its  presence  only  by  its  fruits :  but 
shall  we  beheve  that  the  soul  itself,  in  naked  union  with  the  vital  energy  of 
God,  has  no  way  of  perceiving  the  presence  of  that  energy  but  by  observa^ 


46  OBJECTIONS  OP  ANTI-SPIRITUALISTS. 

tion  of  its  effects,  and  by  inference  ?  The  following  language  evidently  rep- 
resents the  presence  of  God  by  his  Spirit  in  the  soul,  as  a  matter  of  direct 
perception : — 

"  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter,  that  he 
may  abide  with  you  forever  ;  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  whom  the  world  can 
not  receive,  because  it  seeth  him  not,  neither  knoweth  him :  but  ye  know  him  ; 
for  he  dwelleth  with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you.  I  will  not  leave  you  com- 
fortless :  I  will  come  to  you.  Yet  a  little  while,  and  the  world  seeth  me  no 
more  ;  but  ye  see  me;  because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also.  At  that  day  ye 
shall  know  that  I  am  in  my  Father,  and  ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  He  that 
hath  my  commandments,  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me  ;  and  he 
that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of  my  Father ;  and  I  w^ill  love  him,  and  will 
mawfent  myself  to  him.  Judas  saith  unto  him,  (not  Iscariot,)  Lord,  how 
is  it  that  thou  wilt  manifest  thyself  unto  us,  and  not  unto  the  world  ?  Jesus 
answered  and  said  mito  him.  If  a  man  love  me,  he  Avill  keep  my  w^ords  :  and 
my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode 
with  him."   John  14:  16—23. 

'  He  that  is  joined  unto  the  Lord  is  one  spirit,'  i.  e.,  one  spirit  with  the 
Lord,  as  they  that  are  married  are  one.  (See  1  Cor.  6:  17,  and  context.) 
This  being  true,  if  a  Christian  can  feel  his  own  spirit,  he  can  feel  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord;  for  they  twain  are  one.  Thus  consciousness  itself,  the  most 
direct  mode  of  perception  possible,  may  be  brought  to  bear  on  the  Spirit  of 
God.  Li  fact  the  faith  of  salvation  is  not  our  own,  but  '  the  faith  of  the 
Son  of  G-odi!  and  yet  we  feel  it.  How  ?  Most  clearly  by  unity  with  his 
Spirit,  and  by  fellowship  with  his  consciousness.  Li  the  same  way  also,  Hhe 
Spirit  heareth  witness  tvith  our  spirit^  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.' 

But  the  Spirit  of  God  works  not  only  in  the  soul,  but  in  the  body.  By  the 
Spirit  Jesus  healed  diseases,  cast  out  devils,  raised  the  dead,  &c.  Is  it 
probable  that  an  agent  that  wrought  such  mighty  visible  effects,  was  itself 
altogether  imperceptible  ?  When  '  Jesus  perceived  that  virtue  was  gone 
out  of  him,''  we  doubt  not  that  the  woman  perceived  that  the  same  virtue 
had  entered  into  her  blood.  It  is  said  '  the  fountain  of  her  blood  was  dried 
up  ;  and  she  felt  in  her  body  that  she  was  healed  of  that  plague.*  '  If  the 
Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead,  dwell  in  you,  he  that  raised 
up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken  your  mortal  bodies,  by  his  Spirit 
that  dwelleth  in  you.'  Rom.- 8:  11.  Can  the  body  be  quickened,  without 
feeling  that  which  quickens  it  ? 

We  see  that  according  to  Coleridge's  test,  the  Bible  itself  is  a  '  vast  store- 
liouse  of  fanatical  assertion  ;'  and  its  '  pretensions  to  the  supernatural,'  are 
of  the  same  sort  with  those  which  were  '  pilloried  by  Butler,  sent  to  bedlam 
hy  Swift,  gibbeted  by  Warburton,  and  anatomized  by  Bishop  Lavington,' 


M 


^8.  THE  FAITH  ONCE  DELIVERED  TO  THE  SAINTS. 

It  is  apparent  to  the  most  superficial  inspection  of  the  scriptures,  that  the 
Ireligion  even  of  the  Old  Testament  saints,  and  much  more  that  of  the  prim- 
itive church,  was  one  which  placed  man  in  direct  communication  with  God. 
Not  a  saint  can  be  found  among  all  whose  names  are  enrolled  on  the  inspired 
record — from  Abel  to  the  last  of  the  apostles — whose  biography  does  not 
savor  strongly  of  that  marvelousness  which  necessarily  waits  upon  the  open 
manifestations  of  Divinity.  Dreams,  visions,  oracles,  angelic  visitations, 
conversations  with  God,  inspirations,  infusions  of  superhuman  power,  &c., 
are  profusely  scattered  through  the  history  of  Judaism.  And  yet  the  glory 
of  New  Testament  Christianity  as  far  exceeds  that  of  the  preceding  dispen- 
sation, in  respect  to  all  these  and  many  other  manifestations  of  God's  pres- 
ence, as  sun-light  exceeds  star-light.* 

*  Phrenologists  define  hiarX'elousness  to  be  '  c'reduIity--disposition  to  believe  Vvhat  is 
not  proved,  or  what  are  considered  supernatural  manifestations.'  (Fowler  (^'  Kirkham^ 
p.  141.)  Spurzheira  says  it  is  '  a  tendency  to  believe  in  inspirations,  presentiments, 
phantoms.'  &o.  Combe  says  the  org-an  of  marvelousness  *  is  uniformly  large  in  fanat- 
ics. It  predominates  in  the  Rev.  Edward  Irving,  and  in  all  his  followers  whom  I  have 
seen.'  (Combe  s  Phrenology,  p.  79.)  By  the  marvelousness  of  the  Bible,  v^'e  mean  that 
characteristic  of  the  Bible  which  requires  'marvelousness'  in  those  who  receive  it.  The 
following  statistics  give  the  result  of  a  running  examination  of  the  whole  Bible  with 
reference  to  this  point : 

MARVELOUS  EVENTS  RECORDED  IN  THE  BIBLE. 

Supernatural  omens,         -                        -                        •                        -                        -  14 

SigniHcant  dreams,                        -                         -                         -                        -  23 

Appearances  of  angels  and  other  supernatural  beings,                      -                        -  51 

Supernatural  visions^                     -                         -                         -                        -  66 
Miracles   specifically  mentioned,  (not  including  the    vast  number  alluded   to  in 

Matt.  8:  16,  and  like  passages,)                           ...  175 

Inspired  prophecies,  revelations,  and  other  direct  communications  from  the  Lord,  449 

Total,  778 
The  items  here  enumerated,  by  no  means  embrace  all  the  matter  in  the  Bible  that 
might  be  classed  under  the  head  of  marvelousness.  Special  providences,  religious  ex- 
ercises like  those  described  in  many  of  the  psalms,  and  in  short  every  recognition  of  the 
presence  and  direct  agency  of  God  or  any  other  invisible  being,  might  be  placed  in  the 
same  category.  But  the  statistics  already  given  are  suflicient  for  our  purpose.  It  is 
manifest  that  marvelousness  is  a  very  prominent  characteristic  of  the  Bible;  and  any 
one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine,  may  see  that  it  pervades  every  part,  we  might 
almost  say,  every  page  of  the  book.  It  is  not  confined  to  those  portions  which  were 
written  in  the  earlier  and  darker  ages  of  Judaism.  Modern  philosophy  teaches  that 
supernatural  wonders  diminish,  as  light  increases.  But  we  find  the  contrary  of  this 
true  of  the  Bible.  The  character  and  history  of  Jesus  Christ  is  surrounded  with  more 
of  the  materials  of  marvelousness,  than  that  of  Moses  and  the  prophets.  The  new 
dispensation  which  he  ir.troduced,  with  all  its  increase  of  light,  was  accompanied  by 
dreams,  visions,  appearances  of  angels,  miracles,  revelations  and  wonders  of  every 
kind,  in  greater  abundance  than  ever  was  known  before.  The  New  Testament  begins 
with  the  record  of  the  supernatural  conception  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  ends  with  a  gorgeous 
vision  of  the  spiritual  world. 

Thus  it  is  manifest  that  the  Bible  is  fitted  to  feed  and  perpetuate  what  the  sages  of 
these  philosophical  times  caW  fanaticism.  A  book,  filled  with  excellent  stories  of  special 
providences,  miraculous  deliverances,  angelic  visions,  spiritual  ecstasies,  &c.  &c.,— 
and  especially  a  book  which  is  so  implicitly  credited  as  the  Bible — cannot  be  generally 
read  without  begetting  in  many  minds  the  image  of  its  own  spirit.     Such  men  as  Swe- 


48  THB  FAITH  ONCE  DELIVERED  TO  THE  SAINTS. 

The  main  difference  between  the  two  dispensations,  was  this :  In  accord- 
ance with  the  general  character  of  the  introductory  dispensation,  God  mani- 
fested himself  to  the  Jewish  saints  in  an  external  mamier ;  i.  e.,  by  visions, 
vocal  oracles,  angels,  or  at  the  most  by  tnbse  external  influences  of  the 
Spirit  which  affect,  as  it  ^vere,  only  the  outer  surface  of  the  soul,  as  in  the 
case  of  prophetic  inspiration.  Whereas  he  manifested  himself  to  Christian 
behevers  in  the  deep  sanctuary  of  their  hearts,  making  them  radically  new 
creatures,  taking  away  their  sins,  and  giving  them  full  and  permanent  fel- 
lowship with  his  own  vitality.  The  indwelling  of  God  was  a  mystery  w^hich 
was  '  hid  from  the  ages  and  generations'  of  Judaism,  but  was  manifested  to 
the  primitive  church.  There  was  also  this  further  difference.  God  manifes- 
ted himself,  even  externally,  only  to  a  few  under  the  Jewish  dispensation. 
Whereas  the  promise  of  Christianity  was,  '  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  upon 
all  flesh :  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy,  and  your  young 
men  shall  see  visions,  and  your  old  men  shall  dream  dreams.'  This  promise 
was  fulfilled.  The  special  manifestations  which  had  before  been  confined  to 
a  few  individuals  in  every  age,  were  given,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  and 
afterwards,  to  the  w^hole  church  of  God. 

These  differences,  however,  do  not  destroy  the  identity  of  faith  under  the 
two  dispensations.  The  religion  of  both — i.  e.  the  religion  of  the  whole  Bible 
— was  based  on  immediate  communication  with  God.  The  later  manifesta- 
tions were  more  complete,  spiritual  and  universal,  and  of  course  produced 
greater  changes  of  character,  than  the  earlier ;  but  the  faith  which  invited 
and  apprehended  those  manifestations,  was  the  same  in  all  ages.  Hence 
Paul,  in  the  11th  of  Hebrews,  traces  the  history  of  one  and  the  same  faith, 
by  a  continuous  line,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  till  the  advent  of  per- 
fection by  Christianity.  The  generic  element  in  all  the  instances  of  faith 
which  he  adduces — and  in  the  faith  of  Christianity  as  well  as  Judaism, — is  an 
apprehension  of,  and  confidence  in  the  living  God,  as  actually  present,  man- 
ifesting himself  by  signs  and  wonders,  communicating  superhuman  wisdom 
and  power,  overrulmg,  for  the  believer's  comfort  and  protection,  the  powers 
of  the  spiritual  and  natural  worlds. 

We  must  distinctly  mark  the  difference  between  tliis  faith,  and  several 
counterfeits  which  have  been  extensively  substituted  for  it. 

1.  Many  talk  about  'contending  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints,'  as  though  this  were  to  be  referred  to  theological  controversy^ 
and  as  though  the  faith  of  the  saints  were  belief  in  a  mere  scheme  of  doc- 
trine.    But  was  it  by  belief  in  an  orthodox  creed  that  the  saints  '  stopped  the 

denborg-  and  Irving',  however  false  and  pernicious  may  have  been  their  views  in  other 
respects,  were  certainly  more  nearly  in  spiritual  concord  with  the  Bible,  in  respect  to 
marvelousness,  than  the  philosophers  and  theolog-ians  who  deride  them.  And  while 
marvelonsne&s  remains  a  part  of  human  nature,  and  the  Bible  is  allowed  to  feed  it,  we 
may  assuredly  look  for  the  nppearance  of  such  'fanatics'  adinfinitum.  Those  conserv- 
ators therefore,  of  the  public  morals,  whose  business  it  is  to  put  down  'pestilent 
heresies,'  must  either  return  to  the  policy  of  Popery,  and  forbid  the  reading  of  the  Bible 
by  any  but  the  clergy,  (and  even  then  some  cicricaZ  enthusiast  like  Luther  will  break 
forth,)  or  they  must  give  up  their  business,  and  seek  the  welfare  of  mankind  by  en- 
deavoring to  enlighten  and  purify  the  fanatical  propensities,  which  they  can  neither 
Bnnother  nor  control. 


THE  FAITH  ONCE  DELIVERED  TO  THE  SAINTS.  49 

mouths  of  lions,  quenched  the  violence  of  fire,  escaped  the  edge  of  the 
sword,  out  of  weakness  were  made  strong  V  Nothing  can  he  plainer  than 
that '  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,'  as  exemplified  by  Paul  in  the 
11th  of  Hebrews,  was  directed,  not  toward  doctrines,  but  toward  the  living 
Qod. 

2.  Philosophers  and  poets  have  an  apprehension  of  God  as  manifested  in 
the  '  tlie  ivorks  of  nature ^^  which  they  call  faith.  But  this  implies  no  personal 
acquaintance  with  God.  Believers  of  this  kind  sustain  no  nearer  relation 
to  God  than  one  man  would  to  another,  in  case  the  parties  had  never  seen 
each  other,  or  had  any  communication — but  only  had  seen  each  other's  pro- 
ductions. Whereas  the  faith  exhibited  in  the  Bible,  manifestly  introduced 
the  saints  to  personal  fellowship  with  God,  so  that  they  walked  with  him,  con- 
versed with  him,  received  messages  and  messengers  from  him,  and  lived  un- 
der his  immediate  protection  and  superintendence. 

3.  The  faith  of  many  religious  persons  consists  in  receiving  the  Bible  as  the 
word  of  God.  They  apprehend  God  as  revealed  through  the  scriptures. — 
This  kind  of  faith  is  like  that  last  mentioned — only  the  believer  in  this  case- 
has  not  merely  seen  the  works  of  the  unknown  being,  but  has  received  a  letter 
from  him,  which  he  reveres  and  believes.  The  letter  however  is  not  address- 
ed to  him  individually,  but  is  a  circular  sent  '  to  all  whom  it  may  concern.' 
So  that  there  is  still  no  personal  acquaintance. 

4.  Another  class  of  religionists,  a  little  in  advance  of  the  former,  by  syste- 
matizing the  legal  developments  of  the  Bible,  build  up  in  their  minds  what 
they  call  a  moral  government,  and  place  God  at  the  head  of  it  as  king  over 
moral  beings.  Their  faith  apprehends  God  in  his  official  capacity.  The  re- 
lation between  him  and  them  is  that  of  king  and  subject.  Their  king,  like 
the  kings  of  this  world,  is  high  and  lifted  up,  far  above  his  common  subjectSy 
distant  and  reserved.  They  see  him  only  through  his  laws  and  state  trans- 
actions. In  all  this  there  is  no  personal  acquaintance,  no  vital  union.  God 
thus  apprehended,  is  not  in  the  believer,  ruling  by  spiritual  power,  but  over 
him'  ruling  by  written  laws.  This  is  not '  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.* 

5.  Many  of  those  already  mentioned,  and  others,  go  so  far  as  to  admit 
certain  measures  of  God's  j^ersonal  influence.  They  conceive  of  him  not  on- 
ly as  manifested  through  his  works,  his  word,  and  his  moral  government,  but 
as  operating  by  his  spirit  on  the  mind.  But  they  are  careful  to  disclaim  any 
thing  like  revelation,  inspiration,  and  supernatural  power.  They  regard  the 
operations  of  the  Spirit  as  only  imperceptible  auxiliaries  to  the  truth,  influ- 
ences which  never  manifest  themselves  directly  to  the  consciousness,  or  in 
any  other  way  ;  and  which  never  would  be  recognized  at  all,  if  the  Bible  did 
not  testify  of  their  existence.  This  is  the  worst  counterfeit  of  all ;  for  while 
it  appropriates  to  itself  much  of  the  language  of  the  ancient  saints,  and  so 
makes  itself  the  most  respectable  substitute  for  Bible  faith,  it  as  effectually 
excludes  the  living  God  from  his  proper  place  in  the  heart,  and  in  the  church, 
as  any  of  the  grosser  forms  of  unbelief.  It  is  this  kind  of  faith  which,  while 
pretending  to  honor  the  spiritual  poAver  of  God  as  the  chief  agent  of  salvation, 
yet  dares  not  trust  it,  but  thrus*  the  law  into  its  place  as^the  great  presiding 
influence  ;    and  makes  the  Spirit  its  secondary  adjunct.    It  is  this  kind  of 

6 


60  THH  FAITH  OXCE  BELITERKD  TO  TH12  SAINTS, 

faith  which  daubs  over  the  apostasy  of  Christendom  from  the  standard  of  the* 
primitive  saints,  by  teaching  that  'the  age  of  mirades  is  past' — an  assumptiony 
or  rather  a  presumptuoias  falsehood,  ^vhich  is  better  fitted  to  destroy  the  legit- 
imate influence  of  the  Bible  than  all  the  enactments  of  Popery  ;  since  the 
Bible  relates  only  to  an  age  of  miracles-^-its  entire  religion  and  morality  is« 
indissolubly  mterwoven  with  supernatural  manifestations  :  it  is  therefore  adap- 
ted only  to  an  age  of  miracles,  and  if  it  were  time  that  the  age  of  miracles  19^ 
p^ist,  men  of  the  present  day  would  have  little  more  practical  interest  in  it 
than  they  have  in  the  Arabian  Nights'  Entertainment.  It  is  this  kind  of 
faith,  whicli,  while  it  loudly  praises  the  prophets  and  apostles,  derides  as  vis- 
ionary enthusiasm  every  approach  toward  that  direct  communication  with  God 
wliich  was  the  glory  of  prophets  and  apostles  ;  and  thus  covertly,  but  really 
casts  infamy  on  the  entire  religion  of  the  Bible,  and  on  all  the  saints  of  God^ 

The  true  faith,  of  which  the  foregoing  are  counterfeits,  while  it  recognizes 
the  reflection  of  divine  radiance  in  the  works  of  nature,  in  the  Bible,  and  in 
the  moral  government  of  the  universe,  still  turns  with  chief  interest  to  the 
direct  manifestations  of  God  by  his  Spirit ;  and  it  limits  not  the  Holy  One  to 
imperceptible  and  dubious  influences,  but  gives  him  room  to  reveal  himself 
now,  as  in  past  ages,  by  all  the  appropriate  operations  of  his  infinite  energy^ 

There  is  an  intrinsic  and  palpable  absurdity  in  the  idea  of  admitting  the 
Spirit  of  God  into  the  world,  and  yet  curtailing  its  appropriate  and  formerly 
actual  manifestations,  under  the  plea  that  the  age  of  miracles  is  past.  The 
age  of  miracles  cert'\inly  is  not  past  with  God.  He  is  as  mighty  as  ever ; 
and  wherever  his  Spirit  comes  at  all,  there  is  superhuman,  i.  e.,  miraculous 
power ;  and  if  miraculous  power  is  admitted  into  the  world  in  the  smallest 
degree,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  age  of  miracles  is  past  with  reference  to 
man ;  and  the  w^ay  is  therefore  open  for  all  the  primitive  manifestations  of 
divine  power.  And  then,  how  irrational  it  is  to  suppose  that  the  same  agent 
which  once  gave  to  man  gifts  of  superhuman  wisdom  and  powder,  is  still 
present,  but  only  as  a  latent  auxiliary  of  the  clergy  !  What  a  blasphemous 
descent  is  this,  from  the  subhme  to  the  ridiculous  !  As  well  might  a  purbhnd 
dotard  say  that  the  sun  still  shines,  but  the  age  of  daylight  is  past,  and  only 
one  of  the  seven  colors  Avhich  were  the  elements  of  ancient  sunlight,— and 
that  the  dimmest — is  now  given  to  the  world ! 

We  repeat  it — the  great  central  idea  of  '  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,'  was  that  of  tlie  living  God  present  in  individual  believers  and  in 
the  church,  and  manifest  by  manifold  tokens  of  superhuman  wisdom  and 
power.  And  let  it  be  observed  that  the  relation  between  God  and  man  which 
this  idea  involves,  is  not,  as  unbelief  would  suggest,  uimatural,  and  foreign 
from  the  original  design  of  man's  constitution.  God  made  man  in  his  own 
image,  with  the  very  intent  that  this  relation  should  exist  between  them — 
that  man  should  be  the  temple,  or,  we  may  say,  the  complement  of  God. 
Adam  at  the  beginning  lived  in  open  companionship  with  his  Maker.  As 
"Woman  was  married  to  man,  so  man  was  married  to  God.  And  it  was  to 
restore  this  union,  which  sin  had  severed,  that  the  Son  of  God  was  made 
flesh,  and  suftered  death.  The  renewal  ana  everlasting  confirmation  of  the 
at-one-ment  which  eijdsted  between  God  and  the  first  Adam,  was  the  great 


THE  FAITH  ONCE  ©ELIVEEBD  TO  THE  SAINTS.  k^ 

achievement  of  the  second  Adam.  Moreover,  it  is  plainly  predicted  in  scrip- 
ture that  tlio  human  race  in  its  final  glory,  shall  return  to  open  companionship 
with  God — that '  his  tabernacle  shall  be  with  men,  and  he  shall  dwell  with 
them,  and  shall  be  their  God.'  A  relation  which  existed  at  the  beginning — 
which  Christ  came  and  died  to  estabhsh — which  will  exist  in  the  final  state  of 
man,  cannot  be  unnatural.  On  the  contrary,  the  present  ordinary  condition 
of  mankind,  hving  without  God,  is  unnatural — at  variance  utterly  with  their 
-original  constitution.  Man  without  his  original  spiritual  Head,  is  as  mucli 
out  of  the  order  of  nature,  as  woman  without  a  husband.  The  apostasy  is 
ifche  widowhood  of  the  human  race. 

As  the  manifest  indwelling  of  God  is  the  essence  of  Bible  religion,  so  it  is 
the  corner  stone  of  Bible  morality,  education,  social  order,  and  physical  well- 
being.  All  schemes  of  reform  and  improvement  for  soul  and  body,  which 
have  not  this  for  their  starting  point  and  their  end,  however  popular  and 
promising  they  may  be,  are  as  certainly  impostures  as  the  Bible  is  a  book  of 
truth,  and  man  was  made  to  be  the  temple  of  his  Maker.  Who  but  a 
madman  can  expect  to  check  the  spiritual  and  physical  disorders  of  social 
life,  and  restore  mankind  to  harmony  and  happiness,  while  the  first  great 
wheel  of  the  Avhole  machinery  by  which  the  result  is  to  be  attained,  is  want- 
ing ?  Trees  without  roots  will  as  soon  bud  and  blossom  and  bring  forth  fruit, 
as  man  will  attain  holiness  of  heart,  virtue  of  action,  wisdom  of  thought  and 
health  of  body,  without  the  indwelling  of  God. 

The  true  reason  why  the  great  Reformation  by  Luther  has  failed,  is  that 
it  turned  the  faith  of  the  world  to  the  Bible,  rather  than  to  God.  Protes- 
tants are  learning  by  sore  experience  that  the  Bible  is  not  a  '  sufficient  rule 
©f  faith  and  practice.'  Tiie  numberless  and  still  multiplying  schisms  of  the 
reformed  churches,  are  making  it  more  and  more  manifest  that  the  balance- 
wheel  of  original  Christianity  is  not  yet  recovered — that  the  Bible,  without 
inspiration  as  the  regulator  of  interpretation,  is  but  an  '  apple  of  discord.' 
In  like  manner  all  the  subordinate  reforms  of  more  recent  date  which  have 
any  thing  but  the  living  God  for  their  centre  and  propelling  power,  will 
sooner  or  later  fail. 

On  the  other  hand,  let  the  foundation  of  Bible  faith  be  laid, — let  God  be 
invited  by  believing  hearts  to  make  his  tabernacle  with  men,  and  reveal  all 
the  glory  of  his  wisdom  and  power  as  he  revealed  it  to  the  primitive  church ; 
let  Him  be  installed  and  acknowledged  as  the  ever-present  and  presiding 
Genius  of  Reform,  and  speedily  sin  and  death  will  flee  away,  and  the  earth 
become  as  Eden. 

Let  all,  then,  w^ho  seek  salvation  for  themselves,  or  long  for  the  regener- 
ation of  the  world — '  contend  earnestly/  for  the  faith  ONCE  deliveeed  to 


§  9.    THE  AGE  OF  SPIRITUALISM. 

The  whole  world  seems  to  be  looking  for  a  Revolution.  Some  expect  an 
orthodox  Millennium ;  others,  a  golden  age  of  phrenology ;  others  still,  a 
physiological  regeneration  of  the  human  race  ;  and  not  a  few  are  awaiting, 
in  anxious  or  hopeful  suspense,  the  trump  of  the  Second  Advent,  and  the  day 
of  judgment.  AVe  also  are  looking  for  a  Revolution  ;  and  we  will  endeavor 
to  set  forth  our  idea  of  the  form  in  which  we  expect  it  will  appear. 

Dividing  human  nature  into  four  departments,  viz.,  the  physical,  moral, 
INTELLECTUAL,  and  SPIRITUAL,  WO  hold  that  man  can  be  truly  regenerated 
only  by  the  paramount  development  of  his  spiritual  nature.  Accordingly 
we  beheve  that  the  great  change  w^hich  is  coming,  will  be  an  outburst  of 
spiritual  knowledge  and  power — a  conversion  of  the  world  from  sensuality, 
from  carnal  morality,  and  from  brain-philosophy,  to  spiritual  wisdom  and  life. 
It  has  been  said  that  the  Bible  was  not  designed  to  teach  any  of  the  natural 
sciences.  But  the  time  will  come  when  that  book  will  be  acknowledged  as 
the  great  repository  of  the  facts  and  principles  of  a  science  which  rightfully 
takes  precedence  of  all  others,  viz.,  spiritual  philosophy — the  science 
which  treats  of  the  nature,  power,  attraction,  repulsion,  and  fellowship  of 
spirits ;  which  refers  health,  wdsdom,  and  righteousness,  to  the  energy  of 
God ;  and  disease,  fatuity  and  sin,  to  the  power  of  the  devil ;  which  thus 
points  out,  as  the  only  means  of  radical  reformation,  the  expulsion  of  the 
spirit  of  evil  on  the  one  hand,  and  spiritual  union  with  God  on  the  other. — 
This  is  the  science  which  in  the  phenomena  of  its  practical  application, 
gleamed  out  from  time  to  time  along  the  whole  course  of  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation ;  which  blazed  up  and  for  a  little  space  lighted  the  whole  earth  in  the 
time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  ;  and  which  is  destined,  notAvithstanding  all 
the  attempts  of  unbehef  to  quench  it,  by  covering  it  with  the  infamy  of 
mysticism,  to  break  forth  again,  consume  the  partition  between  heaven  and 
earth,  and  become  the  judgment-fire  of  the  world. 

We  have  come  to  the  belief  that  such  a  Revolution  is  approaching,  by 
several  distinct  lines  of  argument,  which  we  will  briefly  trace. 

I.  If  our  fourfold  division  of  human  nature  is  correct,  we  may  expect  to 
find  in  the  growth  and  education  of  the  race  of  man,  under  the  superinten- 
dence of  God,  a  progression  from  the  physical  to  the  moral,  from  the  moral 
to  the  intellectual,  and  from  the  intellectual  to  the  spiritual.  Accordingly, 
the  past  history  of  the  world  may  be  legitimately  divided  into  three  distinct 
periods,  corresponding  to  three  of  these  departments.  The  first  extends  from 
Adam  to  Moses,  and  may  be  called,  the  period  of  pliydcal  development : 
the  only  account  we  have  of  it,  represents  it  as  a  period  of  physical  longevity 
and  sensuality  :  it  certainly  was  not  a  period  of  either  moral  or  intellectual 
discipline.  The  second  extends  from  Moses  to  Christ,  and  may  be  called 
the  period  of  moral  development,  as  it  was  distinguished  by  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  the  special  moral  training  of  the  Jewish  nation. 
The  tlurd  estQuds  from  Christ  to  the  present  time,  and  may  be  called,  the 


THE  AGE  OF  SPIRITUALISM.  53 

period  of  intellectual  development.  The  Gentiles,  who  took  the  place  of  the 
Jews  in  the  school  of  God  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  have  never 
equalled  them  in  moral  strength,  but  have  far  exceeded  them  in  intellectual 
attainments.  'The  (rre  A  seek  after  wisdom  ;'  (ICor.  1:  22  ;)  and  Greek 
and  Latin  wisdom  has  been  the  predominant  element  of  Gentile  Christianity. 
Scholarship,  rather  than  moral  power,  has  been,  and  is,  the  test  of  eminence 
among  the  clergy.  The  harvest  of  this  third  period  has  been  a  wonderful 
advance  of  '  science'  in  every  direction. 

Three  periods,  then,  of  the  education  of  the  world  are  past.  The  fourth, 
i.  e.,  the  period  of  spiritual  development,  is  that  which  is  approaching. 

II.  By  a  more  particular  survey  of  the  history  of  the  Jewish  and  Gentile 
churches,  we  shall  come  again  to  the  same  conclusion.  During  the  first 
thousand  years  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  i.  e.,  down  to  the  last  Babylonish 
captivity,  God  instructed  and  disciplined  the  Jews,  chiefly  by  ceremonies, 
providential  and  miraculous  manifestations,  and  occasional  inspiration  of 
individuals.  The  mass  of  the  nation  were  ignorant  of  letters  ;  and  for  a  long 
time  the  only  copy  of  the  law  in  existence,  was  that  deposited  in  the  ark  of 
the  covenant.  The  employment  of  the  Bible  as  a  means  of  general  instruc- 
tion, dates  from  the  period  of  Ezra,  after  the  return  from  Babylon.  At 
that  time  copies  of  the  WTitings  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  began  to  be  mul- 
tiplied and  circulated,  synagogues  were  built,  and  the  Jews  as  a  nation  came 
under  the  influence  of  the  letter  of  the  word  of  God.  This  we  may  call  the 
first  reformation  of  the  Jewish  church. 

After  several  centuries,  when  the  way  had  been  prepared  by  the  letter, 
the  Spirit  of  the  word  of  God  was  given.  The  Holy  Ghost  was  poured  upon 
the  primitive  church — not  merely  on  a  few  favored  individuals,  but  on  all 
who  believed — and  wrought  in  them,  and  by  them,  not  only  all  manner  of 
signs  and  wonders,  but  righteousness  and  salvation.  All  were  taught  of 
God.  All  were  admitted  to  personal  acquaintance  with  the  Father.  This 
we  may  call  the  second  reformation  of  the  Jewish  church. 

Passing  now  to  the  Gentile  church  which  succeeded  the  primitive,  we  find 
that  the  process  just  described  was,  in  the  course  of  a  few  centuries,  com- 
pletely reversed.  As  the  Jewish  church  received  first  the  letter,  and  then 
the  Spirit ;  so  the  Gentile  church,  descending  by  the  same  steps  which  the 
Jewish  church  had  ascended,  lost  first  the  Spirit,  and  then  the  letter  of  the 
word  of  God.  The  ministers  of  the  primitive  church  aspired  to  be  only  the 
servants  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  their  business  not  so  much  to  teach  the 
people  themselves,  as  to  introduce  them  to  the  great  invisible  teacher,  the 
Spirit  of  truth.  But  the  time  soon  came  when  the  bishops  enlarged  their 
office,  and  became  the  principal  teachers  of  the  people.  Of  course  they 
crowded  the  Spirit  out  of  the  world.  This  w^as  the  first  step  of  apostasy  from 
the  word  of  God. 

In  process  of  time,  the  bishops  began  to  be  jealous  of  the  Bible  also,  as 
being  a  teacher  that  in  part  superseded  their  office.  Accordingly  they  took 
upon  them  to  forbid  the  common  use  of  it.  The  people  were  cut  off"  from  the 
letter^  as  well  as  the  Spirit  of  the  word  of  God.  This  was  the  second  step  of 
the  apostasy ;  aud  it  consigned  the  Gentile  chuixh  to  the  dungeon  of  the  dark 


bi  THE  AGE  OF  SPIRITUALISM. 

ages.  There  it  lay  a  thousand  years.  Then  commenced  another  reforma- 
tion. 

We  are  prepared  by  our  previous  observations  to  anticipate  the  nature  and 
process  of  this  return  to  the  word  of  God.  As  the  Jewish  church  ascended^ 
and  the  Gentile  church  descended,  each  by  two  steps,  so  we  naturally  look 
for  two  steps  in  the  re-ascension  of  the  Gentiles.  As  the  Jews  received  first 
the  letter  and  then  the  Spirit,  and  the  Gentiles  lost  first  the  Spirit  and  then 
the  letter,  we  may  presume  that  in  returning  from  their  apostasy  the  Gen- 
tiles A\dll  recover  first  the  Bible  and  then  the  Holy  Ghost. 

This  presumption  exactly  accords  with  the  actual  history  of  the  Gentile 
reformation,  so  far  as  it  has  yet  advanced.  The  great  achievment  of  Wick- 
liffe,  Huss,  Luther  and  Calvin,  was  the  rescue  of  the  Bible  from  its  imprison- 
ment. The  motto  of  Protestantism  is — 'The  Bible  is  the  only  and  sufficienit 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.''  In  the  translation  and  universal  circulation  of 
the  scriptures,  which  has  been  accomplished  within  the  last  few  centuries,  we 
recognize  the  first  reformation  of  the  Gentile  church,  corresponding  to  the 
work  of  Ezra  and  the  fathers  of  the  Jewish  sjniagogue.  But  the  second 
reformation  is  yet  to  come.  The  letter  of  the  word  of  God  has  been  recov- 
ered, but  the  Spirit  remains  yet  to  be  won.  The  labors  of  Luther  and  Cal- 
vin have  not  restored  to  the  Gentile  church  the  inspiration  and  divine  power 
of  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Protestantism  has  no  more  of  the  spiritual  glory 
which  cro^vned  the  primitive  church,  than  Popery ;  in  fact  it  is  an  accepted 
proverb  through  all  reformed  Christendom,  that '  the  age  of  miracles  is  past;' 
and  by  that  is  meant,  that  the  age  of  the  manifestation  of  the  power-and  glory 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  past,  never  to  return  ;  that  all  pretensions  to  inspiration, 
and  spiritual  power,  such  as  attended  the  morning  of  Christianity,  are  out  of 
date  and  under  sentence  of  infamy. 

The  first  reformation,  then,  has  not  restored  original  Christianity,  and  the 
•analogy  of  past  history  clearly  instructs  us  to  expect  a  second  reformation, 
:as  much  more  glorious  than  the  first,  as  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  more  glo- 
irious  than  Ezra's  feast  of  tabernacles. 

III.  The  signs  of  the  times  indicate  that  God  is  making  ready  for  a  great 
^spiritual  manifestation.  In  the  midst  of  the  idolatrous  enthusiasm  of  the  day 
ifor  physical  improvement,  legal  morality,  and  scientific  discovery,  there  is  a 
^visible  movement  of  the  public  mind  toward  spiritual  truth.  Germany,  the 
ipioneer-land  of  the  Reformation,  the  emporium  of  human  wisdom,  notwith- 
i-standing  its  '  rationalism,'  is  teeming  with  psychological  theories,  which  our 
iphlegmatic  intellectualists  call  '  mysticisms  ;'  but  which  in  fact  are  approxi- 
miations  to  the  Spiritual  Philosophy  of  the  Bible.  From  Germany  the  leaven 
(has  gone  forth  into  England  and  this  country.  Men  of  note  in  the  learned 
.•and  religious  world,  are  not  ashamed  to  indulge  in  speculations,  which  once 
would  have  been  classed  with  the  hallucinations  of  Swedenborg  and  Ann 
Lee.  Nor  is  the  spiritualizing  leaven  confined  to  those  upper  classes  whose 
ileisure  and  cultivation,  allow  them  to  philosophize.  '  Mysticism'  has  assumed 
a  visible  and  popular  form  in  the  phenomena  of  Mesmerism,  and  has  gone 
•out  into  the  '  highways  and  hedges,'  compelling  men,  high  and  low,  to  believe 
ihat  spirits  are  actusd  and  potent  substances ;  tliat  life  can  dwell  in  life,  and 


SPIRITUAL  NATURE  OF  MAN.  55 

Will  actuate  will.  We  know,  that  both  these  movements — the  philosophical 
and  popular — are  only  approximations  to  the  development  of  true  Spiritual 
Philosophy,  and  that  they  are  associated  more  or  less  with  unbelief  and 
worldly  motives  in  their  advocates.  Yet  we  regard  them  as  influences,  sent 
and  directed  by  heaven,  to  turn  the  minds  of  men  toward  the  invisible  world 
— premonitory  symptoms  of  the  approaching  spiritual  Revolution. 

As  the  mariner,  when  he  has  taken  an  observation,  and  ascertained  his 
place  on  the  chart,  knows  how  to  trim  his  sails  and  set  his  helm,  so  we,  with 
these  views  of  the  position  of  the  world,  and  of  the  counsels  of  God,  find  our 
pathway  clearly  marked  out.  Our  business  is  to  be  co-workers  with  God  in 
ushering  in  the  last  period  of  man's  education — the  second  Reformation — 
the  victory  and  reign  of  spiritual  wisdom  and  poiver.  In  devoting  ourselves 
to  this  object,  we  have  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  we  are  not  acting 
under  the  influence  of  blind  and  therefore  impotent  benevolence ;  that  w^e 
'run  not  as  uncertainly,  and  fight  not  as  one  that  beateth  the  air.'  The 
direction  of  our  course  is  parallel  with  the  visible  current  of  human  destiny, 
and  with  the  manifest  movements  and  purposes  of  God. 

The  views  which  have  been  presented,  also  direct  us  to  the  means  by 
which  we  may  most  effectually  co-operate  with  God  in  the  spiritual  regenera- 
tion of  mankind.  As  the  Bible  is  the  great  manual  of  Spiritual  Philosophy, 
our  main  business  as  co-workers  with  him,  is  to  serve  as  door-keepers  to  the 
Bible — to  do  what  we  can  to  make  all  men  '  meditate  therein  day  and  night ;' 
and  especially  to  bring  forth  into  due  prominence  the  spiritual  doctrmes  of 
the  Bible, 


§  10.    THE  SPIRITUAL  NATURE  OF  MAN. 

I.  What  is  a  spirit  ?  The  dictionaries  answer — ^An  immaterial  sub- 
stance;^ which  is  the  same  as  to  say,  '  It  is  not  matter  I' — a  definition  too 
negative  to  give  any  valuable  information.  We  answer — It  is  Sb  fluid;  having 
many  of  the  properties  of  caloric,  light,  electricity,  galvanism  and  magnet- 
ism ;  and,  in  addition  to  these,  having  powers  of  assimilation,  growth,  and 
self-originated  motion,  being  susceptible  of  personality,  feehng,  inteUigence, 
and  will. 

If  any  object  to  our  calling  spirit  a  fluid,  we  appeal  for  authority  to  the 
Bible.  On  almost  every  page  of  that  book,  the  language  commonly  used 
with  reference  to  the  nature  and  operations  of  air,  water,  and  other  fluids,, 
is  applied  to  spirits.  For  examples,  see  Matt.  3:  11,  John  7:  38,  39,  and 
20:  22,  Acts  2:  2,  and  10:  44,  45,  1  Cor.  12:  13,  Eph.  5:  18. 

If  it  is  still  objected  that  it  savors  of  materialism,  to  say  that  spirits  have 
many  of  the  properties  of  caloric,  hght,  electricity,  &c.,  we  appeal  again  to 
the  Bible.  Without  adverting  particularly  to  the  representations  in  scrip- 
ture, of  powers  in  spirits  analogous  to  the  pervading  quality  of  caloric,  th^ 


56  SPIRITUAL   NATmiE   OF  MAN. 

radiation  of  light,  &c.,  it  is  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose  to  refer  tlie 
reader  to  a  few  passages  in  which  one  of  the  special  characteristics  of  elec- 
tricity— its  poAver  of  passing  from  one  point  to  another  by  material  conductors 
— ^is  attributed  to  the  spiritual  fluid.  See  Luke  8  :  43 — 46.  Acts  8 :  17, 
18,  and  19  :  12. 

Our  definition  should  not  be  accused  of  materialism,  till  it  is  settled,  that 
caloric,  hght,  electricity,  galvanism  and  magnetism,  are  material  substances. 
Turner,  in  the  hitroduction  to  his  Chemistry,  (p.  15)  says  that  the  imponder- 
able fluids  are  '  agents  of  so  diffiisible  and  subtle  a  nature,  that  the  common 
attributes  of  matter  cannot  be  perceived  in  them.  They  are  altogether 
destitute  of  weight ;  at  least,  if  they  possess  any,  it  cannot  be  discovered  by 
our  most  dehcate  balances.  They  cannot  be  confined  and  exhibited  in  mass 
like  ordinary  bodies  ;  they  can  be  collected  only  through  the  intervention  of 
other  substances.  Their  title  to  be  considered  material  is  therefore  question- 
able.' 

But  admitting  that  these  fluids  are  material,  still  it  will  be  seen  that  our 
definition  assigns  to  the  spiritual  fluid  only  a  part  of  their  properties,  and 
places  it  in  a  category  beyond  them,  by  attributing  to  it  vital  powers.  Turner 
says —  '  Matter,  though  susceptible  of  motion,  has  no  power  either  to  move 
itself,  or  to  arrest  its  progress  when  an  impulse  is  once  communicated  to  it.' 
(p.  13.)  This  is  the  true  point  of  distinction  between  matter  and  spirit. 
The  one  has  power  of  action  in  itself;  the  other  has  none.  Our  definition, 
therefore,  by  superadding  to  the  properties  of  caloric,  hght,  electricity,  &c., 
the  power  of  self-originated  motion^  as  one  of  the  attributes  of  spirit,  places 
spirit  beyond  the  boundaries  of  matter. 

We  freely  confess  that  we  are  so  far  materialists,  that  we  believe  there  is 
no  such  vast  chasm  between  spirit  and  matter  as  is  generally  imagined,  but 
that  the  two  touch  each  other,  and  have  properties  in  common — that  caloric, 
light,  electricity,  galvanism  and  magnetism,  are  in  some  sense,  connecting 
links  between  the  material  and  spiritual  worlds — that  spirit  is  in  many  res- 
pects like  these  fluids,  and  is  as  truty  substantial  as  they.  We  do  not  ascribe 
to  spirit  'length,  breadth  and  thickness,'  in  the  common  acceptation  of  those 
words,  because  the  nature  of  all  fluids  precludes  those  properties.  Who  ever 
thinks  of  attributing  length,  breadth  and  thickness  to  the  sunlight  ?  One 
would  not  know  how  to  measure  or  which  w^ay  to  go  in  taking  the  dimensions 
of  such  a  substance.  Yet  if  a  specific  portion  of  any  fluid  is  separated  from  the 
mass  and  confined  in  a  solid  vessel,  that  portion  of  fluid  assumes  the  length, 
breadth  and  thickness  of  the  vessel.  So  if  a  specific  portion  of  spirit  or  life 
is  confined  in  an  animal  form,  that  life  assumes  the  length,  breadth  and  thick- 
ness of  that  form.  In  this  sense  we  believe  that  spirits  have  length,  breadth 
and  thickness. 

Materialism  is  not  the  only  error  men  are  liable  to  fall  into  in  their  specula- 
tions on  spiritual  science.  Every  extreme  has  its  opposite.  There  is  a  vast 
amount  of  morbid  «?ifMnaterialism  among  religionists  and  metaphysicians. 
When  the  notion  that  spirit  is  an  '  immaterial  substance,'  is  carried  so  far  as 
to  deny  all  substantial  qualities  to  spiritual  beings,  we  call  it  etherialism,  or 
ht/joer-spiritualisnif  and  regard  it  as  an  errpr  quite  as  pernicious  as  materiahsm. 


SPIRITUAL  NATURE  OV  MAN.  67 

II.  What  is  a  soul  ?  We  will  seek  an  answer  to  this  question,  by 
examining  the  account  which  the  Bible  gives  of  the  original  creation  of  man. 

'  The  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into 
his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living  soul.'  Gen.  2:7. 
Man  then  was  compounded  primarily  of  only  two  substances — the  dust  of  the 
ground,  and  the  breath  of  life — matter  and  spirit.  There  was  no  third  sub- 
stance— no  soul,  as  distinguished  from  the  body  on  the  one  hand,  and  from 
spirit  on  the  other. 

Adam's  soul  certainly  was  not  made  of  the  dust  of  the  ground ;  and  yet 
all  that  God  made,  in  forming  him,  was  made  of  dust.  The  other  element 
was  not  made,  but  existed  before  in  God  himself,  and  was  breathed  into  that 
which  was  made.  Was  it  Adam's  soul  then  that  was  breathed  into  the  dust 
which  God  formed  ?  If  so,  there  is  no  distinction  between  soul  and  spirit; 
for  the  language  used  plainly  indicates  that  the  substance  which  God  infused 
into  the  body  of  Adam  was  the  vital  fluid,  or  spirit,  as  we  have  defined  that 
term  on  a  former  page.  Moreover,  if  it  was  Adam's  soul  that  God  breathed 
into  his  body,  it  is  evident  that  no  beginning  can  be  predicated  of  that  soul 
' — since  it  was  not  formed  with  his  body,  but  previously  existed  in  God.  This 
theory  will  land  us  in  the  doctrine  of  human  pre-existenee  and  metempsychosis* 
Besides,  Paul  expressly  distinguishes  between  soul  and  spirit,  as  broadly  as 
between  soul  and  body,  where  he  says, '  I  pray  God  that  your  whole  spi7it 
and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  blameless,'  &c.     1  Thes.  5  :  23.       •  y/ 

We  are  shut  up  then  to  the  conclusion  that  Adam's  soul  was  neither  formed 
of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  nor  breathed  into  him  from  God,  but  was  pro- 
duced by  the  union  of  the  dust  of  the  ground  and  the  breath  of  God.  The 
two  primary  substances  compounded,  produced  a  third. 

A  soul,  then,  is  a  modification  of  spirit,  produced  by  union  with  a  material 
body.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  modification,  which  distinguishes  a  soul 
from  mere  spirit  ?  We  answer : — 1.  When  the  vital  fluid  from  God  entered 
into  combination  with  Adam's  body,  that  fluid  took  the  form  of  that  body. 
It  certainly  animated  every  part  of  it ;  of  course  it  existed  in  every  part, 
was  as  large  as  all  the  parts,  and  had  the  form  of  the  whole.  A  soul  then 
is  distinguished  from  mere  spirit  in  this  respect — viz.,  the  former,  like  the 
body,  has  a  definite  shape ;  while  the  latter,  hke  air  and  other  fluids,  has  ,/" 
none.  2.  The  spirit  which  God  breathed  into  Adam's  body,  by  its  intimate 
union  with  every  part  of  that  body,  and  by  its  consequent  intercourse  mth 
various  material  substances,  as  food,  air,  &c.,  necessarily  received  into  itself 
some  of  the  properties  of  matter.  As  Ac^im's  body  was  spiritualized  matter, 
so  conversely  Adam's  soul  was  materialized  spirit.  This  modification  places 
the  soul  in  a  middle  position  between  mere  spirit  and  matter  ;  and,  in  con- 
junction with  the  first  mentioned  modification,  accounts  for  the  fact  that  souls, 
according  to  the  representations  of  scripture,  even  in  a  state  of  separation 
from  bodies,  have  the  forms  and  functions  of  bodies,  and  are  definite  visible 
substances  to  spiritual  eyes.  (See  Luke  16:  22,  23,  &c.  Rev.  6:  9.)  The 
spirit  which  God  breathed  into  Adam's  form,  was  a  mere  fluid  without  defi- 
nite form,  and  without  material  cohesiveness.  If  it  had  been  instantly  with- 
drawn, before  a  permanent  union  of  it  with  matter  was  formed,  it  would  ^ 
7 


58  SPIRITUAL  NATURE  OF  MAN. 

doubtless  have  remained  an  incoheslve  fluid — an  undistinguished  part  of  the 
whole  spirit  of  life.  But  as  soon  as  it  entered  into  combination  with  the 
dust-formed  body,  it  received  the  shape  and  cohesiveness  of  that  body — 
became  partially  indurated  or  congealed  ;  so  that  it  ever  afterward  retained 
a  definite  sliape,  and  of  course  an  identity  separate  from  that  of  the  univer- 
sal spirit  of  life.  If  this  were  not  so — ^if  the  soul  were  a  mere  fluid  spirit, 
when  the  body  dies  that  spirit  would  return  into  the  abyss  of  hfe  from 
whence  it  came,  and  lose  its  identity ;  just  as  a  portion  of  water,  taken  from 
tlie  ocean,  when  its  vessel  is  broken,  returns  and  is  distinguished  no  more. 

Our  doctrine  then,  is,  that  the  soul  is  spirit  in  a  materialized  or  partially 
indurated  state — that  every  man's  soul  is  of  the  same  size  and  form  as  his 
body.  Paul's  distinction  of  the  several  departments  of  human  nature  into 
body,  soul,  and  spirit,  we  expound  thus :  the  body  is  the  material  organiza- 
tion ;  the  soul  is  the  corresponding  spiritual  organization  which  animates  the 
body ;  and  the  spirit  is  the  vital  fluid  which  radiates  from  body  and  soul 
combined. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  '  If  the  soul  is  nothing  but  the  life  of  the  body,  what 
is  the  difierence  between  man  and  brute  ? — why  may  it  not  be  said  that  ani- 
mals, as  well  as  men,  have  souls  ?'  We  reply,  it  is  not  true,  and  we  have 
not  said,  that  man's  soul  is  nothing  hut  the  life  of  his  hody.  It  is  this,  and 
something  more.  The  breath  of  God  has  in  it  the  whole  nature  of  God. 
That  breath,  in  combining  with  Adam's  body,  became  as  to  its  outer  surface 
-^its  point  of  contact  with  matter — the  animating  principle  of  that  body, 
and  assunilated  to  it.  But,  as  to  its  inner  being,  it  was  still  in  communica- 
tion -with  God,  and  assimilated  to  him.  Beside  the  hfe  of  the  body,  there 
was  a  reasoning  moral  nature,  resembling  God's.  The  animation  of  the  body 
is  only  one  of  the  functions  of  the  soul.  We  shall  speak  of  other  powers — 
the  heart,  understanding,  &c., — hereafter.  The  mere  fact  therefore  that 
brutes  have  bodily  life — one  of  the  soul's  manifestations — does  not  prove  that 
they  have  souls  like  those  of  men. 

We  have  no  objection  however  to  allowing  that  brutes  have  souls  in  a  cer- 
tain sense.  They  certainly  have  something  distinct  from  matter  that  animates 
their  bodies.  The  difierence  between  man  and  brutes,  as  we  gather  from 
the  account  of  creation,  is  this  ;  God  caused  the  water  and  the  earth  to  bring 
forth  all  the  animals  below  man.  (See  Gen.  1 :  20,  24.)  Their  life  there- 
fore was  not  received  directly  from  God,  but  came  to  them  through  an 
intermediate  material  conductor.  At  the  beginning  '  the  spirit  of  God  moved 
[or  brooded]  upon  the  face  of  the  waters.'  (Gen.  1 :  2.)  Thus  life  was 
infused  into  the  chaos  of  matter,  and  the  earth  became  semi-animate.  Then 
God  caused  the  caith  to  bring  forth  animals — their  bodies  and  spirits.  The 
life  they  received  was  of  course  previously  materialized.  They  were  but  the 
children  of  the  semi-animate  mass  of  matter.  Whereas  when  God  created 
man  he  made  only  his  body  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  hfe  into 
it  directly  out  of  his  own  essence.  Adam's  life  was  not  materialized  before 
he  received  it.     He  was  the  immediate  offspring  of  God. 

We  Avill  here  note  down  some  of  the  results  which  are  deducible  from  the 
foregoing  theory  of  the  souL 


SPIRITUAL  NATURE   OF  MAN,  S6 

1.  The  prime  element  of  the  soul  being  not  a  created  suhstance,  but  an 
-eternal  spirit,  is  in  its  nature  indestructible.  Nevertheless  the  union  of  that 
spirit  with  the  body,  and  the  consequences  of  that  union,  which  we  have  seen 
are  the  formation  of  the  soul  as  distinguished  from  mere  spirit,  and  the  esta]> 
lishment  of  individual  consciousness,  are  not  necessarily  eternal.  Man  will 
owe  the  immortality  of  his  consciousness,  and  of  his  union  with  a  corporeal 
organization,  to  the  resurrection. 

2.  The  soul,  being  the  animating  principle  of  the  body,  growing  mth  it, 
having  its  size  and  form,  will  retain  its  peculiarities  when  the  body  dies. 
We  see  therefore  the  folly  of  those  who  teach  that  there  is  no  distinction  of 
sex  in  heaven. 

3.  With  these  views  we  see  also  the  error  of  those  who  make  a  wide 
distinction  between  the  soul  and  the  life  of  the  body,  as  though  these  were 
separate  and  independent  principles,  to  be  managed  and  medicated  in  totally 
different  ways.  We  have  no  account  of  Adam's  receiving  an  '  animal'  or 
*  physical'  life,  in  addition  to  the  spirit  of  life  which  became  his  soul.  The 
life  of  the  body  is  manifestly  a  part  of  the  life  that  constitutes  the  soul ;  not 
the  whole  of  it,  for  then,  the  death  of  the  body  would  be  the  death  of  the 
soul.  '  Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth  alone  ; 
but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit'  It  does  not  however  die  entirely. 
The  inner  germ  lives  and  shoots  forth  into  a  new  plant.  The  outer  coating 
dies.  But  the  life  of  the  inner  germ  and  of  the  outer  coating  is  the  same. 
So  the  life. of  the  soul  and  the  body  is  the  same.  Yet  the  body  may  die,  and 
the  soul  still  live,  and  renew  its  strength.  Doctors,  physiologists,  and  all 
those  theologians  and  philosophers  who  treat  physical  life  as  though  it  were 
altogether  independent  of  the  soul,  would  do  weU  to  study  Moses'  ac<Jomit  of 
the  creation  of  man. 

4.  We  see  what  Christ  m.eant  when  he  said '  he  that  belie veth  on  me  shall 
•never  die.'  He  did  not  divide  man's  life  into  two  parts,  calling  one  the  life 
of  the  body,  and  the  other  the  life  of  the  soul;  but  \^ewing  the  life  of  the 
body  and  soul  as  one,  he  affirmed  as  he  meant,  that  in  the  case  of  believers 
that  one  life  should  never  cease  its  consciousness  and  growth.  Even  though 
the  body  should  be  destroyed,  its  animating  principle  should  live  on. 

5.  We  see  in  our  theory  a  foundation  for  the  confident  expectation  of  final 
victory  over  death,  as  predicted  in  Isaiah  25:  8,  1  Cor.  15:  51,  &c.  If 
the  soul  is  the  life  of  the  body,  it  is  manifest  that  as  faith  grows  strong,  and 
the  life  of  Cod  abounds  and  prevails  in  the  soul,  the  effect  will  be  felt  in  the 
body.  A  long  and  general  warfare  may  be  required,  before  the  souls  of 
believers  will  acquire  energy  enough  to  resist  victoriously  all  the  deadly 
influences  which  now  crowd  upon  their  bodies,  and  to  convert  them  into  spir- 
itual bodies ;  but  every  increment  of  faith  and  spiritual  life  in  the  whole  body 
of  Christ  is  directly  tending  to  this  consummation. 

Our  doctrine  has  these  two  advantages  over  the  common  cloudy  notions 
about  the  soul ;  viz.  1.  It  is  simple.  It  relieves  us  of  the  perplexing  and 
false  distinctions  between  the  soul  and  the  life  of  the  body.  It  reduces  the 
primury  elements  of  human  nature  to  two — matter  and  life  ;  or,  in  their  com- 
pound state,  to  three — one  body,  one  soul,  and  one  life  common  to  both. 


60  SPIRITUAL  NATURE  OP  MAN. 

2.  It  represents  the  soul  as  a  substantial  existence,  that  can  be  thought  of 
and  reasoned  about ;  and  not,  hke  the  common  theories,  as  an  inconceivable 
something,  half-way  between  real  substance  and  nonentity. 

III.  The  NATURE  AND  LOCATION  OF  THE  HEART.  We  know  by  the 
familiar  phenomena  of  our  corporeal  organizations,  that  the  power  of  perceiv- 
ing, feeling,  and  wilUng,  exist ;  and  as  there  is  no  activity  in  mere  matter, 
we  know  that  these  powers,  though  manifested  through  the  bodily  organs, 
belong  to  the  soul.  The  eye  does  not  see,  but  the  soul  sees  through  the  eye  ; 
the  hand  does  not  feel,  but  the  soul  feels  through  the  hand ;  the  muscles  do 
not  will,  but  the  soul  wills  through  the  muscles.  The  soul,  then,  is  a  per- 
ceiving, feeling,  and  wilhng,  substance. 

But  we  have  seen  that  the  essence  of  Adam's  soul  was  a  spiritual  fluid — 
the  breath  of  God.  It  was  not  a  complex  organization,  having  separate 
departments,  like  those  of  the  body,  appropriated  to  the  separate  powers  of 
perceiving,  feeling,  and  willing.  It  was  a  simple  substance,  without  form, 
till  it  took  the  form  of  the  vessel  into  which  it  was  breathed.  It  is  one  and 
the  same  substance,  then,  that  sees,  feels,  and  wills.  '  There  are  diversities 
of  operations,  but  it  is  one  spirit  that  worketh  all  in  all,'  in  the  organizations 
of  individuals,  as  well  as  in  the  body  of  Christ.  (1  Cor.  12 :  6.)  All  the 
faculties  which  manifest  themselves  through  the  senses,  muscles,  nerves,  brain, 
&c.,  actually  reside  in  the  one  life  which  animates  the  whole  man.  The 
power  of  perceiving  which  manifests  itself  through  the  eye,  actually  exists  in 
the  hand ;  though  it  does  not  ordinarily  manifest  itself  there,  because  it  has 
there  no  appropriate  organ.  So  the  powers  of  willing  and  feeling  actually 
exist  wherever  life  exists,  i.  e.  throughout  the  whole  body;  though  they 
manifest  themselves  ordinarily  only  where  special  organs  are  prepared  for 
them. 

Now  it  is  a  matter  of  course  that  the  one  life  which  thus  distributes  itself 
as  mto  branches  through  all  the  organs  of  the  body,  should  have  somewhere 
a  point  of  unity — a  centre  where  aU  the  branches  meet.  In  the  Bible  this 
spiritual  centre  is  called  the  heart.  As  it  is  a  matter  of  some  consequence 
to  determine  the  location  of  the  seat  of  government  in  such  a  kingdom  as 
human  nature,  we  will  examine  the  evidence  on  this  point. 

Phrenologists,  neurologists,  and  physiologists,  generally  teach  with  much 
show  of  certainty,  that  the  brain  is  the  seat,  not  only  of  perception,  but  of 
sensibility,  passion,  and  volition — the  centre  from  which  the  spirit  emanates 
— '  the  organ  of  the  mind' — '  the  palace  of  the  soul.'  We  join  issue  with  these 
philosophers,  and  aflBrm  that  the  spiritual  centre  is  an  invisible  organ.,  situ- 
ated in  the  middle  of  the  lower  ])art  of  the  breast. 

To  forestall  any  objection  that  may  arise  from  the  fact  that  the  organ  of 
which  we  speak,  is  not  discoverable  by  dissection,  we  here  remark,  that  all 
the  most  radical  and  potent  agencies  of  the  universe,  are  invisible.  God 
himself,  who  is  the  spiritual  centre  of  all  things,  is  not  discoverable  by  teles- 
cope or  microscope.  If  man  is  compounded  of  matter  and  spirit,  a  part  of 
his  nature  is  visible,  and  a  part  invisible.  Our  doctrine  is  that  the  visible 
and  invisible  elements  touch  each  other  primarily  not  in  the  brain j  but  in  the 
middle  of  the  lower  part  of  the  breast. 


SPIRITUAL  NATURE   OF  MAN.  61 

In  support  of  our  position  we  first  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  nature.  Ask 
any  simple  minded  person,  where  he  thinks^  and  he  may  point  to  his  head ; 
but  ask  him  where  ]iq  feels  such  emotions  as  love,  jealousy,  remorse,  joy,  and 
sorrow,  and  he  will  assuredly  lay  his  hand  on  his  breast.  If  he  has  ever  ex- 
amined attentively  liis  own  consciousness,  he  will  have  no  hesitation  in  testify- 
ing also  that  the  energy  of  his  will  is  not  in  his  brain,  but  in  something  which 
he  calls  '  heart;'  meaning  not  the  fleshly  organ  on  the  left  side,  but  something 
which  he  feels  (however  anatomists  may  fail  to  find  it)  in  the  central  part 
of  his  body. 

Let  any  one  inquire  of  his  own  conscio\:fsness,  where  fear  makes  its  im- 
pression. The  brain  doubtless  is  the  organ  of  intelligence,  through  which  (as 
through  the  eye  or  any  other  outward  sense)  information  of  danger  is  con- 
veyed to  the  spiritual  center  ;  but  the  ultimate  sensation  of  terror,  every  body 
knows,  is  a  fainting,  death-like  feeling  at  the  place  called  the  pit  of  the 
stomach. 

This  testimony  of  universal  consciousness  is  confirmed  by  sound  views  of 
physiology.  The  two  principal  departments  in  the  corporeal  nature  of  man, 
are  those  of  the  nerves  and  the  hlood.  The  centre  of  the  nervous  system  is 
in  the  head ;  and  the  centre  of  the  blood,  or  sanguineous  system,  is  in  the 
chest.  Now  if  the  spirit  is  primarily  connected  with  the  nerves,  its  central 
seat  is  in  the  head  ;  but  if  it  is  primarily  connected  with  the  blood,  its  cen- 
tral seat  is  in  the  chest.  It  is  a  fair  and  necessary  presumption  of  common 
sense,  that  the  spirit  is  primarily  connected  with  that  one  of  the  two  systems 
which  takes  precedence  of  the  other  in  order  of  growth,  and  importance.  It 
would  be  unnatural  to  suppose  that  the  last  link  of  the  visible  part,  that  which 
touches  the  invisible,  is  a  link  of  secondary  and  dependent  rank.  But  it  is 
acknowledged  by  physiologists  that  the  brain  and  nervous  system  are  secon- 
dary to,  and  dependent  on  the  blood.  The  sanguineous  system  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  every  other  department  in  the  physical  economy.  We  thence 
infer  that  it  is  the  residence  of  the  spirit ;  and  then  it  follows  that  the  cen- 
tral seat  of  the  spirit  is  in  the  chest. 

AVe  will  quote  the  opinions  of  some  distinguished  physiologists  on  the  rel- 
ative importance  of  the  nervous  and  sanguineous  systems.  The  writer  of  the 
article  on  Physiology  in  the  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia,  says : — 

"Although  the  animal  functions  act,  as  it  were,  in  a  circle,  and  are  so 
intimately  connected  together  that  the  intermission  of  any  one  of  them  is 
followed  by  some  disturbance  in  the  system,  yet  the  circulation  of  the  hlood 
seems  to  he  that  from  which  all  the  rest  derive  their  origin^  and  which  is  the 
work  essential  to  the  well  being  of  the  whole.  This  is,  in  respect  of  time, 
the  first  function  which  we  are  capable  of  observing  in  the  young  animal 
during  its  foetal  existence.  Haller  informs  us  that  he  was  distinctly  able  to 
trace  the  rudiments  of  the  future  heart  in  the  chicken  during  incubation,  for 
some  time  before  he  could  clearly  observe  either  the  brain  or  the  lungs.* 
With  respect  to  the  relative  importance  of  the  heart  and  the  brain,  it  may  be 

*  We  might  safely  infer  that  the  organs  of  the  sanguineous  system  are  first  developed 
in  other  animals,  from  the  situation  of  the  wTnii^icaZ  core?.  The  life  of  the  foetus  mani- 
festly enters  by  the  belly,  and  not  by  the  brain. 


62  SPIRITUAL  NATURE  OF  MAN. 

remarked,  that  although  both  of  them  are  necessary  for  the  functions  of  tho 
most  perfect  ammals,  yet  we  can  easily  conceive  that  simple  existence  may 
for  some  time  be  sustained  without  the  intervention  of  any  of  the  faculties 
which  originate  from  the  nervous  system,  but  that  the  nervous  system  cannot 
act  for  the  shortest  hiterval  without  a  due  supply  of  blood  from  the  heart,  or 
some  analogous  organ.  Upon  the  whole  therefore^  we  are  to  regard  the  heart 
as  the  centre  of  the  animal  frame,  which  seems  to  unite  the  various  functions, 
however  different  in  their  nature  and  operations,  into  one  connected  vital 
system."    Vol.  xv.  p.  634. 

In  the  great  dispute  among  physiologists  of  the  last  century  on  the  question 
whether  the  nerves  are  necessarily  concerned  in  muscidar  co^itraction, 
"Haller  adduced  cases  of  acephalous  foetuses,  which  had  yet  grown  to  their 
full  size,  and  seemed  to  possess  the  various  vital  functions  in  a  perfect  state  ; 
so  that  they  must  have  enjoyed  muscular  contractility,  although  totally  des- 
titute of  a  brain.  He  also  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  heart  is  a  muscular 
organ  in  perpetual  motion,  and  capable  of  strong  contraction,  yet  scantily 
furnished  with  nerves,  and  almost  destitute  of  feeling.  It  was  also  advanced 
as  a  strong  proof  that  muscular  contraction  may  be  independent  of  the  nerves 
and  brain,  that  muscular  parts  remain  contractile  for  a  considerable  time 
after  they  are  removed  from  the  body,  and  of  course  when  their  communica- 
tion with  the  brain  is  destroyed:  and  this  is  particularly  the  case  tvith  the 
heart  itself,  which  in  many  of  the  amphibia  and  cold  blooded  animals,  re- 
mains susceptible  of  the  impression  of  stimulants  for  some  hours  after  its 
separation  from  the  body."  p.  630. 

"  Dr.  W.  Philip  showed  by  a  series  of  elaborate  experiments  that  muscu- 
lar parts,  and  in  particular  the  heart,  can  continue  to  contract  for  an  indefi- 
nite period  after  the  complete  destruction  of  both  the  brain  and  spinal  cord/' 
p.  631. 

After  viewing  the  whole  discussion,  the  writer  of  the  article  in  the  En- 
cyclopedia says — "  We  conceive  it  to  be. clearly  proved  by  Dr.  Philip,  that 
there  are  a  large  class  of  muscular  parts  which  have  but  little  connection 
with  the  nervous  system,  or  are  only  occasionally  under  its  influence.  This 
is  the  case,  with  the  parts  which  are  not  under  the  control  of  the  will,  and 
-especially  with  the  organs  which  are  concerned  in  those  functions,  wiiich,  in 
their  ordinary  healthy  action,  do  not  produce  perception,"  i.  e.,  all  the  organs 
'that  are  concerned  in  the  formation  and  circulation  of  the  blood. 

The  whole  of  this  testimony  goes  to  show  that  the  sanguineous  system  is 
primary,  and  the  nervous  system  secondary  ;  and  consequently  the  spiritual 
power  which  moves  the  first  wheel  in  the  whole  corporeal  machinery,  must 
have  its  place  at  the  centre  of  the  sanguineous  system,  i.  e.,  in  the  middle 
region  of  the  trunk. 

Dr.  Hunter  came  to  the  borders  of  this  very  theory,  by  a  course  of  reas- 
'oning  in  relation  to  the  coagulation  of  the  blood,  the  details  of  which  we  need 
-not  here  present.  "  He  supposed  that  the  blood  is  not  merely  the  substance 
which  gives  life  to  the  animal,  by  carrying  to  all  parts  what  is  necessary  for 
their  support  and  preservation,  but  that  it  is  itself  a  living,  organizedhodyj 
and  even  the  peculiar  seat  in  which  the  vitality  of  the  whole  system  resides,'''* 


SPIRITUAL  NATURE   OF  MAN..  6^ 

We  are  now  prepared  to  hear  the  testimony  of  the  Bible  on  this  subject ; 
Crod  is  certainly  the  best  of  all  witnesses,  in  questions  relating  to  his  own 
workmanship  ;  and  we  conceive  that  he  has  testified  on  the  point  under  dis- 
cussion, very  distinctly  and  peremptorily.  The  doctrine  that  the  blood  is 
the  vehicle  of  life,  or  in  the  language  of  Dr.  Hunter,  is  '  the  pecuhar  seat 
of  the  vitahty  of  the  whole  system,'  is  so  plainly  taught  in  the  following 
passages,  that  we  cannot  but  wonder  that  any  difference  of  opinion  should 
have  ever  existed  among  professedly  Christian  physiologists. 

"  Whatsoever  man  there  be  of  the  house  of  Israel  or  of  the  strangers  that 
sojourn  among  you,  that  eateth  any  manner  of  blood,  I  will  even  set  my  face 
against  that  soul  that  eateth  blood,  and  will  cut  him  off  from  among  his  peo- 
ple. For  the  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood:  and  I  have  given  it  to  you  up- 
on the  altar,  to  make  an  atonement  for  your  souls  ;  for  it  is  the  blood  that  mar 
keth  an  atonement  for  the  soul.  Therefore  I  said  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
No  soul  of  you  shall  eat  blood,  neither  shall  any  stranger  that  sojourneth 
among  you  eat  blood.  And  whatsoever  man  there  be  of  the  children  of  Israel, 
or  of  the  stranger  that  sojourneth  among  you,  which  hunteth  and  catcheth  any 
beast,  or  fowl  that  may  be  eaten,  he  shall  even  pour  out  the  blood  thereof,  and 
cover  it  with  dust.  For  it  is  the  life  of  all  flesh  ;  the  blood  of  it  is  for  the 
life  thereof:  Therefore  I  said  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  ye  shall  eat  the 
blood  of  no  manner  of  flesh  :  for  the  life  of  all  flesh  is  the  blood  thereof  J^ 
Lev.  IT:  10—14. 

That  the  life  of  man  is  in  his  blood,  and  of  course  that  the  spiritual  centre 
is  not  in  the  brain,  but  in  the  middle  region  of  the  body,  will  appear  if  we 
consider  the  process  of  his  original  creation.  '  The  Lord  God  formed  man 
©f  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  ; 
and  man  became  a  living  soul.'  Gen,  2:  7.  We  perceive  by  this  account 
that  the  original  elements  of  human  nature  were  simply  '  the  dust  of  the 
ground,'  and  '  the  breath  of  life  ;'  or,  in  other  words,  spirit  and  matter. — 
Our  question  is — Whereabouts  in  the  body  of  Adam,  did  these  two  sub- 
stances come  together  ?  The  account  clearly  points  to  the  answer.  '  The 
Lord  God  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life.'  The  nostrils  are  the 
channel,  not  to  the  brain,  but  to  the  lungs,  and  through  them  to  the  blood. 
'  The  breath  of  life,'  then,  first  entered  the  blood ;  and  the  point  of  junction 
was  within  the  thorax. 

It  does  not  necessarily  follow  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the  fleshly 
organ  on  the  left  side  of  the  body,  commonly  called  the  heart,  is  the  seat  of 
the  spirit.  That  organ  is  only  one  among  several  agents  that  are  employed 
in  the  preparation  and  distribution  of  the  blood.  All  the  great  viscera  as 
truly  belong  to  the  sanguineous  system,  as  the  heart.  The  stomxach,  the 
liver,  the  pancreas,  and  the  lungs,  are  the  real  generators  of  the  blood. 
The  ofiice  of  the  heart  is  chiefly  mechanical.  In  determining  the  location 
of  the  spirit,  we  should  naturally  have  regard  to  the  whole  apparatus  over 
which  it  specially  presides.  As  it  is  the  vital  energy  that  moves  the  internal 
organs  and  impregnates  the  blood,  its  appropriate  seat  is  at  the  central  point 
of  the  lower  part  of  the  thorax,  in  the  midst  of  all  the  several  departments 
of  the  sanguineous  system. 


64  SPIRITUAL  NATURE  OP  MAN. 

The  correctness  of  this  exact  result,  is  established  not  only,  as  we  have 
insisted,  by  the  testimony  of  universal  consciousness,  but  by  the  plain  inti- 
mations of  scripture.  It  may  be  seen  by  consulting  a  concordance,  that  the 
word  hearty  as  used  in  the  Bible,  almost  universally  refers  to  the  spiritual 
centre,  not  to  the  fleshly  <:>rgan  on  the  left  side.  We  find  but  three  instan- 
ces in  which  the  several  writers  apply  the  word  to  any  part  of  the  body,  viz., 
Ex.  28:  29,  30,  2  Sam.  18:  14,  and  2  Kings,  9:  24.  In  the  two  latter 
instances,  neither  the  language  or  circumstances  absolutely  determine  the 
exact  part  of  the  body  referred  to.  But  all  the  probable  e^ddence  that  can 
be  found  in  either,  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  writers  use  the  word  lieart 
to  designate  the  middle  of  the  person^  in  the  same  manner  as  it  designates 
the  middle  of  the  earth,  heaven,  and  sea,  in  Matt.  12:  40,  Deut.  4:  11, 
Ex.  15:  8,  &c.  But  the  first  of  the  three  instances  happily  furnishes  con- 
clusive evidence,  and  that  directly  from  God  himself,  in  regard  to  the  cor- 
poreal location  of  the  heart,  as  that  word  is  used  in  the  Bible.  We  will 
quote  the  passage. 

"Aaron  shall  bear  the  names  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  breast-plate  of 
judgment  upon  Us  hearty  when  he  goeth  into  the  holy  place,  for  a  memorial 
before  the  Lord  continually.  And  thou  shalt  put  in  the  breast-plate  of  judg- 
ment the  Urim  and  Thummim ;  and  they  shall  be  upon  Aaron^s  heart  when 
he  goeth  in  before  the  Lord  ;  and  Aaron  shall  bear  the  judgment  of  the 
chMreii  of  Isvsiel  upon  his  heart  hehvQ  the  Lord  continually."  Ex.  28: 
29,  30. 

To  satisfy  any  one  who  may  doubt  about  the  actual  position  of  the  breast- 
plate on  the  person  of  Aaron,  we  quote  the  following  passage  from  Josephus' 
account  of  the  priest's  vestments: — "The  High  Priest  put  on  a  garment 
called  the  Ephod.  Its  make  was  after  this  manner :  it  was  woven  to  the 
depth  of  a  cubit,  of  several  colors,  with  gold  intermixed,  and  embroidered  ; 
but  it  left  THE  MIDDLE  OF  THE  BREAST  Uncovered.  It  was  made  with  sleeves 
also ;  nor  did  it  appear  at  all  differently  made  from  a  short  coat.  But  in  the 
void  place  of  this  garment,  there  was  inserted  a  piece,  of  the  bigness  of  a 
span,  embroidered  with  gold  and  the  other  colors  of  the  Ephod,  and  called 
THE  BREAST-PLATE.  This  piece  exactly/  filledup  the  voidplace  in  the  Ephod'^ 
Ant.  b.  iii.,  chap,  viii.,  §5. 

Thus,  in  obedience  to  God's  command  that  Aaron  should  put  the  breast- 
plate on  his  heart,  he  put  it  on  the  middle  of  his  breast.  The  Urim  and  the 
Thummim,  the  instruments  by  which  God  revealed  his  will,  the  symbols  of 
his  spiritual  manifestation,  stood  over  the  spot  which  true  physiology  and 
universal  consciousness  point  out  as  the  special  dwelhng  place  of  the  soul. — 
(For  other  Bible  hints  on  this  subject,  see  Dan.  7:  15,  John  7:  38.) 

The  heart,  being  the  centre-point  of  all  the  faculties  of  body  and  soul,  is 
the  special  seat  of  personal  consciousness — the  thing  commonly  signified  by 
the  pronoun  *  I.'  It  is  the  collecting  and  distributmg  office  of  the  whole 
man.  As  we  have  seen  that  the  powers  of  perceiving,  feeling  and  willing 
pertaui  to  the  whole  Hfe,  so  they  are  especially  concentrated  in  this  radiating 
point.  In  fact  it  is  from  this  point  that  all  the  growth  and  manifestations  of 
life  originally  proceed,  as  the  stalk  and  branches  of  a  plant  proceed  from 


ANIMAL  MAGNETISM.  65- 

the  germ.  Of  course  all  the  powers  that  manifest  themselves  in  the  senses, 
nerves,  brain,  muscles,  &c.,  were  first  in  the  heart.  Accordingly  the  Bible 
applies  to  the  heart  almost  every  form  of  language  commonly  appropriated  to 
the  senses,  and  other  specific  faculties.  It  is  represented  as  seeing,  hearing, 
understanding,  reasoning,  beheving,  speaking,  &c. 

The  heart,  then,  is  distinguished  from  the  soul,  thus :  The  soul  is  the 
whole  life  of  man,  as  it  exists  in  combination  Avith  the  whole  body.  The 
heart  is  the  centre-point  of  that  life,  situated  in  the  middle  of  the  body, 
having  no  material  organ  of  manifestation,  but  acting  upon  the  other  depart- 
ments of  life  as  the  mainspring  on  the  wheels  and  hands  of  a  watch,  or  as 
the  Executive  on  his  subordinate  officers  in  a  national  government.  IMark 
7:  21,  22. 


§  11.    ANIMAL  MAGNETISM. 


V 


This  curious  science,  (also  called  Mesmerism,)  which  was  condemned  and 
executed  in  France  fifty  or  sixty  years  ago,  by  a  report  of  Franklin  and  other 
scientific  commissioners  appointed  by  the  government  to  sit  in  judgment  upon 
it,  has  risen  from  the  dead,  and  is  now  exciting  as  much  interest  in  this  coun- 
try, as  was  excited  a  few  years  ago  by  Phrenology.  Nor  is  it  a  subject  of 
mere  curiosity  and  ridicule.  It  claims  and  compels  the  attention  of  sober 
and  learned  men,  and  is  evidently  fast  winning  its  way  to  general  credence 
and  respectability.  Its  principles  seem  to  be  as  yet  not  fully  settled.  It. 
breaks  forth  from  time  to  time  in  new  forms,  each  more  wonderful  than  any 
that  have  gone  before  it.  Its  principal  advocates  are  yet  engaged,  rather  in 
exploring  its  mysteries,  each  in  a  separate  direction,  than  in  bringing  together 
their  discoveries  into  a  harmonious  system.  We  believe  that  its  facts  (how- 
ever crude  and  discordant  may  be  the  speculations  of  its  professors)  are  over- 
coming materialistic  skepticism,  and  opening  a  passage  from  the  highest 
point  of  physical  science,  into  spiritual  philosophy.  It  is  in  our  view  the  con- 
necting link  between  the  sciences  which  treat  of  those  subtler  powers  of  na- 
ture, called  electricity,  galvanism,  magnetism,  &c.,  and  the  science  of  life, 
animal  and  eternal.  As  such  we  introduce  it  to  our  readers.  A  view  of  its  / 
facts  and  elementary  principles  will  help  to  complete  our  view  of  the  Spiritual  "^ 
Nature  of  Man. 

The  primary  idea  of  the  science,  in  which  all  its  advocates  agree,  is  that  there 
is  a  subtle  fluid  in  the  human  body,  in  some  respects  like  electricity,  which 
may  be  transmitted  in  divers  ways,  from  one  to  another,  and  under  certain 
circumstances,  may  produce  astonishing  and  beneficial  effects  of  various  kinds. 
The  following  is  a  brief  synopsis  of  the  most  lucid  and  satisfactory  exhi])ition 
of  the  subject  which  we  have  met  with.  It  is  an  abstract  of  two  lectures 
given  by  L.  H.  Whiting,  in  Putney,  Vt.,  in  connexion  with  a  great  variety  of 
illustrative  experiments ; 
8 


66  AmUAL  MAGNBTISJf. 

t.  Tlie  agont  of  motion,  sensation,  &c.,  i.  c.  the  substance  'wliicli  is  im^ 
mediately  in  communication  with  the  mind,  and  which  conve^^s  its  mandate* 
to  the  muscles  and  transmits  to  it  the  impressions  of  the  senses,  is  a  subtle 
fluid,  resembling,  electricity  or  galvanism.  This  is  proved  by  such  facts  as 
that  a  dead  body  may  be  made  to  perform  muscular  motions  and  exhibit  va- 
rious phenomena  of  life  by  the  application  of  galvanism. 

2.  This  subtle  agent,  called  the  nervous  fiuid,  is  evolved  by  the  apparatus- 
of  hfe  in  all  animals,  and  radiates  from  them  constantly,  surrounding  them  with 
an  atmosphere  of  greater  or  less  extent,  hke  the  atmosphere  of  animal  heai 
which  emanates  from  them. 

8.  The  developement  of  nervous  fluid  is  greater  in  amount  and  power  ia 
gome  persons  than  in  others,  as  some  electrical  machines  generate  the  elec^ 
trie  fluid  more  abundantly  than  others. 

4.  The  passage  of  the  nervous  fluid  from  one  person  to  another,  takes' 
place  under  the  familiar  law  of  nature  by  which  all  fluids  tend  to  an  equilib' 
rium.  As  water  seeks  the  level  of  the  ocean— as  clouds,  unequally  charged 
with  electricity,  send  forth  lightnings  to  each  other- — as  a  warm  body  imparts- 
its  heat  to  a  colder, — so  by  contact,  or  under  other  favorable  conditions,  the 
nervous  fluid  of  a  person  whose  vital  powers  are  strong,  may  pass  into  and 
possess,  more  or  less  perfectly,  the  body  of  one  whose  vital  powers  are  weaker, 

5.  The  senses  and  muscular  powers  of  a  person  thus  charged  with  the  ner^ 
vous  fluid  of  another,  are  shut  off'  more  or  less  perfectly  from  the  medium  of 
their  ordinary  action,  \dz.  their  own  nervous  fluid,  and  must  act,  if  at  all,  iJt 
and  by  the  nervous  fluid  of  the  magnetizer.  Hence  the  subject  sleeps,  be- 
comes insensible  to  the  causes  of  sound,  smell,  taste,  and  pain,  so  far  as  they 
are  apphed  directly  to  his  own  body;  and  sees,  hears,  tastes,  smells,  feels,  &c., 
only  as  the  nervous  fluid  of  the  magnetizer  is  affected  by  the  causes  of  sensation 
applied  to  Ms  body. 

6.  It  is  an  ultimate  indisputable  fact  that  mind  does  control  matter  in  cer-* 
tain  circumstances.  Within  our  own  bodies  our  minds  have  power  to  set  in 
motion  the  nervous  fluid,  so  as  to  produce  the  various  motions  of  our  limbs. 
But  in  tho  case  of  magnetic  possession,  the  nervous  fluid  of  the  magnetizer 
comes  into  a  relation  to  the  senses  and  faculties  of  another  person,  similar  ta 
that  which  it  ordinarily  sustams  to  his  OYm.  Hence  his  mind  can  set  in  mo- 
tion his  nervous  fluid  so  as  to  produce  motions,  sensations,  and  thoughts,  in 
that  other  person.  There  is  no  more  mystery  in  the  idea  of  the  mind's  oper* 
ating  beyond  the  limits  of  the  body,  than  in  the  idea  of  its  operating  in  ther 
fingers'  ends.  The  mystery  is  how  mind  can  operate  on  matter  at  all ;  and 
this  mystery  attends  not  merely  the  facts  of  animal  magnetism,  but  every 
motion  of  our  bodies. 

These  principles  account  for  all  the  most  common  phenomena  of  the  mag* 
netic  state,  viz.  those  which  result  from  sympathy  between  the  magnetizer 
and  the  subject.  Clairvoyance  involves  other  principles,  of  which  we  shall 
eay  something  hereafter. 

Whether  this  philosophy  is  true  or  not,  the  facts  which  it  professes  to  ac- 
comit  for  are  too  certain  and  abundant  to  be  disposed  of  as  the  tricks  of  jug- 
glera.    In  Mr.  Whiting'a  experiments,  (which  we  ourselves  attended,)  mwb 


ANIMAL  MAGNETISM,  6? 

I&ains  was  taken  to  preclade  the  possibility  of  collusion  between  tlie  operator 
:»nd  the  subject ;  and  we  are  very  certain  that  every  intelligent  person  who 
witnessed  them,  was  satisfied  that  they  were  performed  in  good  faith.  The 
following  are  some  of  the  phenomena  which  w^ere  exhibited  : — The  pulse  of 
ithe  subject  was  raised  instantly  by  the  will  of  the  magnetizer,  accompanied 
by  a  motion  of  his  hand  without  contact,  from  72  to  90  beats  per  minute. 
This  fact  Avas  ascertained  and  attested  by  a  disinterested  physician.  The 
subject  with  his  eyes  closed  and  without  any  visible  communication  with  any 
'One,  named  and  described  accurately  a  great  variety  of  articles,  such  as  pen- 
knives, coins,  pencils,  surgeon's  instruments,  &c.,  which  were  held  heJiindJds 
head  by  indifferent  spectators.  Under  the  same  conditions,  he  read  letters 
:and  words  from  a  book,  and  told  the  time  by  several  watches  set  differently, 
and  in  each  case  accurately  even  to  the  fraction  of  a  minute.  In  all  these  ca- 
ges  the  magnetizer  simply  fixed  his  own  attention  on  the  object  presented,  and 
iminediately  his  perception  was  communicated  by  sympathy  to  the  subject. 
So,  pain  caused  by  the  spectators  in  any  part  of  the  body  of  the  operator, 
was  manifestly  felt  in  the  corresponding  part  by  the  subject ;  though  the  prick 
of  a  pin  in  his  own  body  produced  no  evidence  of  sensation.  In  the  same 
jnanner  tastes  and  smells  were  transferred  from  one  to  the  other.  The  sub- 
ject was  compelled  to  raise  his  arm,  drop  it,  bend  it  in  various  directions,  to 
•stand  up,  sit  down,  &c.  &c.,by  the  silent  will  and  corresponding  motions  of 
the  magnetizer  standing  behind  him.  And  the  possibihty  of  collusion  was 
precluded  by  the  fact  that  the  magnetizer  allowed  one  of  the  spectators  to 
dictate,  by  moving  his  own  arm,  the  motions  to  be  performed  by  the  subject. 
In  addition  to  all  this,  a  great  variety  of  experiments  in  phreno-mesmerism 
■were  performed,  by  which  it  was  manifest  that  the  magnetizer  could  control 
.and  vary  the  thoughts  and  feelings  of  the  subject  as  easily  as  a  musician  calls 
-forth  the  various  tones  of  an  organ. 

For  further  illustrations  of  this  subject,  we  avail  ourselves  of  the  following 
^extract  from  a  pamphlet  published  some  years  ago  by  Charles  Poyen  : — 

« It  i«  a  fact  well  established  by  the  daily  observation  of  at!  magnetizers,  both 
in  Europe  and  America,  that  from  the  moment  a  person  is  put  in  somnambulism^ 
he  becomes  capable  of  appreciating  correctly  and  seizing  the  thoughts,  the  will, 
and  feelings,  not  only  of  his  magnetizer,  but  also  of  those  who  are  put  in  close 
communication  with  him.  This  surprising  and  very  interesting  mode  of  knowU 
edge  is  doubtless  imparted  to  the  somnambulist  through  an  emanation  of  some 
liind,  (call  it  if  you  please,  the  spirit,  the  magnetic  or  vital  fluid)  which  springs 
from  the  brain  of  the  two  parties  and  thus  forms  about  them  a  peculiar  atmos- 
phere,  the  fluctuations  or  movements  of  which  vary  according  to  the  direction 
^ven  by  the  organ  from  which  the  fluid  originates.  The  brain  of  the  magneti- 
zer or  of  the  person  placed  in  communication,  is  the  active  instrument  or  appa- 
ratus, every  operation  of  which  necessarily  impresses  a  new  movement  and  di- 
rection to  the  fluid,  which  is  more  clearly  felt  by  the  corresponding  analogous 
organ,  viz.  the  brain  of  the  somnambulist,  and  thus  creates  herein  the  samo 
iBodifications  as  those  which  exist  in  the  organ  of  the  other  party.  Such  modi* 
fications  constitute  what  we  call  thought,  reasoning,  &c.  &c. 

« I  will  quote  here  a  few  lines  from  a  distinguished  author  whose  name  can  but 
have  a  great  weight  in  the  mind  of  every  well  informed  man.  After  de.scril)ing 
the  manner  in  which  the  nervous  atmosphere  is  formed,  Dr.  Rostan  (see  his  Es- 


68  ANIMAL  MAGNETISM. 

say  on  Animal  Magnetism,  in  the  eighth  volume  of  the  Dictionnaire  de  Medecine,) 
continues  thus  : — <  The  active  nervous  atmosphere  of  the  magnetizer  mingles 
with  the  passive  nervous  atmosphere  of  the  magnetized  person  ;  this  one  is,  there- 
by, influenced  in  such  a  manner  that  his  power  of  attention  is  momentarily  abol- 
ished; and  both  the  impressions  which  h©  receives  inwardly,  and  those  that  are 
transmitted  to  him  by  the  magnetizer,  resort  to  his  brain  through  another 
channel.' 

"  The  nervous  agent  possesses,  like  caloric,  the  faculty  of  penetrating  through 
solid  bodies ;  a  faculty  which  is  doubtless  limited  ;  but  can  satisfactorily  explain 
how  somnambulists  may  be  influenced  through  partitions,  walls,  doors,  &c.,  also 
it  accounts  for  their  perceptions  of  the  savorous  and  odorous  qualities  through 
certain  bodies,  which  in  the  natural  state  cannot  be  penetrated  by  those  particles. 
The  innumerable  facts  which  prove  in  an  indisputable  manner  that  the  magnetic 
action  can  be  exercised  through  solid  bodies,  and  that  the  presence  of  those  bodies 
does  not  prevent  clairvoyance,  compel  us  to  admit  that  the  nervous  or  magnetical 
agent  must  pass  through  them.  This  is  no  more  astonishing  than  light  passing 
through  diaphane  or  transparent  substances,  electricity  passing  through  the  con» 
ductive  bodies,  and  caloric  penetrating  all  sorts  of  bodies.  The  mingling  of  the 
two  nervous  atmospheres  affords  a  very  clear  explanation  of  the  communication 
of  the  wish  and  will,  even  of  the  thoughts  of  the  magnetizer  to  the  magnetized 
person.  The  wish  and  will,  being '  actions  of  the  brain,  this  organ  transmits  them 
to  the  circumference  of  the  body  through  the  channel  of  the  nerves,  and  when  the 
two  nervous  atmospheres  happen  to  meet  each  other,  they  are  so  much  identified 
as  to  form  but  one  ;  both  individuals  become  one  only ;  they  feel  and  think  to- 
gether ;  but  one  of  them  (the  somnambulist)  is  constantly  under  the  dependence 
of  the  other,  while  in  the  magnetic  state.' 

"  In  the  natural  state  we  are  not  capable  of  feeling  the  fluid  above  mentioned 
and  cAperiencing  its  various  movements,  so  as  to  become  conscious  of  it :  it  is 
surely  because  in  the  natural  state  the  vital  energy  is  thrown  too  much  out- 
wardly ;  the  life  of  relation  is  then  predominant,  and  constantly  keeps  our  power 
of  attention  and  feeling  upon  external  objects.  But  through  the  profound  change 
determined  in  the  functions  of  the  nervous  system,  during  the  state  of  somnam- 
bulism, catalepsy,  or  ecstasy,  we  are  enabled  to  hold,  with  a  being  organized  as 
we  are,  a  communication  more  or  less  perfect ;  according,  of  course,  to  the  re- 
spective inward  organic  dispositions  and  capacity  of  the  two  parties.  Indeed 
somnambulism  and  ecstacy  are  particularly  characterized  by  a  suspension,  for 
the  time  being,  of  the  life  of  relation,  whereas  an  inward  sense,  derived  frpm 
a  great  concentration  of  the  vital  energy,  seems  to  be  developed. 

"I  hold  it  to  be  a  well  authenticated  fact,  that  the  will  and  thought  can  be 
communicated  without  the  aid  of  language  or  sign,  whatever  the  medium  of  that 
communication  may  be  ;  out  of  fifty  somnambulists,  you  will  find  upward  of  forty 
who  will  present  this  order  of  phenomena  to  a  certain  degree.  I  have  seen, 
produced  and  read  innumerable  instances  of  it,  and  believe  it  as  much  as  my  own 
existence :  I  believe  it,  also,  because  I  can  account  for  it  through  philosophical 
principles,  as  I  have  above  briefly  stated.  On  the  contrary,  the  faculty  of  seeing 
things  that  are  transpiring  at  a  great  distance,  ^  in  cities,  for  instance,  where  the 
somnambulist  never  was  in  his  life,  the  situation  and  peculiar  distribution  of  which 
he  does  not  know,  and  perhaps  never  read  about^  is  wholly  incomprehensible,  and 
is  not,  indeed,  substantiated  by  good  authority  ;  I  have  never  observed  nor  ever 
read  any  instance  of  it  in  the  scientific  authors  who  have  a\  ritten  on  animal 
magnetism  and  somnambulism.    I  easily  conceive  and  am  willing  to  admit,  that 


ANIMAL  MAGNETISM.  69 

certain  somnambulists  and  ecstatic  persons  have  been  able  to  see  objects  at  a 
distance ;  but  it  was  in  places  where  they  had  been,  and  the  exact  situation  of 
which  they  previously  knew  :  they  had  thus  the  means  of  directing  their  faculty 
of  vision  through  the  country,  and  taking  cognizance  of  things  and  persons  more 
or  less  accurately,  according  to  the  extent  of  this  power  in  them.  But  it  is 
totally  inconceivable,  that  they  can  see  equally  well  in  places  about  which  they 
have  no  previous  correct  impression  in  their  mind  !  Suppose  yourself  a  som- 
nambulist, gifted  with  a  high  degree  of  clairvoyance.  How  could  you  distin- 
guish one  particular  house  or  street  out  of  the  variety  of  streets  and  houses 
which  form  the  cities  of  Paris,  London,  New  York,  (Sec,  if  you  have  never  been 
in  those  places,  or  acquired  by  reading  a  perfect  idea  of  them  ? 

"  I  will  quote  a  few  instances  of  communication  of  thought  and  of  the  influ- 
ence of  the  will,  which  are  very  well  calculated  to  illustrate  the  correctness  of 
my  views, — and  are  not  less  wonderful  and  conclusive  than  those  described  in 
your  narrative. 

"The  phenomena  of  the  communication  of  thought  and  of  the  influence  of 
the  will  were  the  first  that  were  observed  by  the  Marquis  of  Puysegur,  when  he 
discovered  the  state  of  somnambulism.  In  the  very  interesting  letter  written  by 
him  to  some  friends  of  his,  immediately  after  witnessing  those  singular  effects  in 
the  first  somnambulist  he  had,  he  says — '  I  obliged  him  to  move  a  great  deal  on 
his  chair,  as  though  he  was  dancing  by  a  tune,  which  by  singing  mentally  only, 
I  caused  him  to  repeat  aloud.' 

"  Fournler,  in  his  Essay  on  the  probabilities  of  Magnetic  Somnambulism, 
dwells  principally  on  this  phenomenon,  as  being  the  most  common  and  important. 
He  says,  page  48,  that  *  he  saw  a  somnambulist,  whom  he  willed  to  get  up  and 
take  a  hat  lying  on  the  table  in  the  entry,  and  to  put  it  on  the  head  of  a  certain 
person  in  the  company.'  I  did  not  speak  a  word,  says  he,  but  only  made  a  sign 
which  traced  out  the  line  which  I  wished  the  somnambulist  to  follow.  I  must 
observe  that  he  had  a  bandage  oyer  his  eyes  all  the  time  ;  he  rose  from  the  chair, 
followed  the  direction  indicated  by  my  finger,  approached  the  table  and  took  the 
hat  which  was  lying  on  it,  among  many  other  objects,  and  .  .  .  put  it  on  the 
head  of  the  vevy  person  I  meant. 

"  I  might  quote  a  large  number  of  such  facts  from  foreign  authors  on  Magnet- 
ism, of  undoubted  veracity  and  merit ;  but  I  prefer  to  refer  to  some  of  the  same 
description,  which  have  occurred  in  this  country,  as  being  probably  the  more  in- 
teresting and  trustworthy  to  the  Aratrican  reader. 

"  At  one  of  my  exhibitions  in  Pawtucket,  some  nine  months  ago,  a  medical 
gentleman  from  Providence  handed  to  me  a  bit  of  paper,  upon  which  this  sentence 
vi^as  written  :  <  Ask  mentally  to  the  somnambulist  how  far  it  is  from  Pawtucket  to 
Providence.'  I  put  the  question  to  her,  vt^ithout  either  a  sign  made  or  a  word 
spoken  :  she  answered  distinctly, '  four  miles  from  one  bridge  to  the  other,'  which 
is  the  correct  distance. 

"  At  another  exhibition  in  Boston,  I  was  requested  by  an  eminent  gentleman 
then  present,  to  will  the  somnambulist  to  rise  from  the  sofa  upon  which  she  was 
sitting,  and  go  and  take  another  seat ;  I  stood  about  twelve  feet  from  her,  and 
mentally  put  her  the  command.  She  shook  her  head  negatively,  as  though  she 
was  refusing  to  do  something.  I  then  asked  her  why  she  shook  her  head  so  : 
*  You  want  me  to  move  from  my  seat ;  I  don't  want  to.'  In  reference  to  this  fact, 
Mr  William  Jenks  of  Boston,  who  witnessed  it,  says  in  an  article  inserted  by 
him  in  the  Recorder  of  Feb.  17,  1837,  'Farther  and  more  strange  to  our  expe- 
rience, while  the  eye&  of  the  somnambule  continue  closely  shut,  (the  experiments 


■^0  ANIMAL  magnetism/ 

have  been  tried  too  with  bandaged  eyes,)  and  while  no  gesture  or  sound  is  used, 
I  saw  the  magnetiser  ask  the  magnetised  a  question,  (suggested  on  the  spot,  anA 
*>ecretly  by  a  bystander,)  and  heard  the  patient  answer  audibly  and  correctly.* 

"  A  scientific  gentlemen,  who  attended  the  experiments  pertbrmed  in  Paw- 
tucket  by  Rev.  Daniel  Greene,  told  me  that  at  his  written  request  Mr.  Greene 
■willed  that  a  piece  of  apple,  which  he  held  in  his  hand,  would  become  a  chestnut 
burr  for  the  somnambulist.  He,  in  consequence,  handed  it  to  her  ;  and  immedi- 
ately she  began  to  scratch  her  hand  and  complain  that  it  was  full  of  prickles. 
*  What  is  the  cause  of  it  7'  *  Why,'  said  she,  *you  gave  me  a  chestnut  burr.' — 
Mr.  Greene,  it  is  well  known,  has  made  himself  celebrated  in  Rhode  Island  for 
the  wonderful  power  which  he  exercises  by  his  will  only  upon  his  patients. 

^  Mr.  George  Wellmarth  of  Taunton,  related  to  me  the  following  admirable 
instance  of  communication  of  thought  that  occurred  under  his  own  operation. 
He  was  requested  by  a  witness  to  will  his  somnambulist  to  quote  Byron's  well 
known  song,  the  '  Isles  of  Greece.'  Mr.  Wellmarth  mentally  pronounced  the 
first  verse,  and  Mr.  Andros,  the  somnambulist,  starting  from  the  last  words  re- 
peated by  the  magnetizer,  recited  the  whole  song.  Mr.  Wellmarth  willed  him 
again  to  recite  another  passage  ;  he  said  he  did  not  know  it  by  heart,  but  that 
he  knew  where  it  was  in  the  book,  and  would  shov7  it  to  him.  Indeed,  the  sorn- 
»nambulist  got  up,  walked  toward  the  library,  with  his  eyes  perfectly  shut,  took 
the  volume,  and  after  looking  over  it  awhile,  pointed  out  the  precise  verses  that 
had  been  indicated  to  him. 

*•  Innumerable  instances  of  the  same  kind  might  be  offered.  I  will  mention  a 
■few  more  ;  the  two  following  took  place  last  night,  in  presence  of  forty  ef  the 
'most  respectable  citizens  of  Salem,  Mass.  A  young  lady  of  the  place  was  put 
into  the  magnetic  sleep  by  a  member  of  my  class.  Dr.  Fisk,  a  surgeon  dentist. 
A  tumbler  of  water  was  presented  to  the  operator,  with  the  *  written  request  that 
he  would  turn  the  liquid  into  brandy  for  the  somnambulist.'  The  tumbler  was 
in  consequence  handed  to  her ;  she  drank  some  of  it ;  and  being  asked  what  it 
was,  siie  exclaimed  apparently  in  divspleasure,  ^Itisrum.^  A  moment  afterward, 
the  magnetizer  was  again  requested  to  spill  a  little  of  the  water  upon  her  hand, 
willing  it  to  be  hot  rum.  So  he  did,  and  immediately  the  somnambulist  began  t© 
move  her  hands  and  wipe  them  against  her  gown.  Being  asked  what  was  the 
matter,  she  said  that  some  hot  rum  had  been  dropped  on  her  hands. 

"  A  person  under  my  care,  being  in  the  magnetic  sleep,  a  medical  genfleman 
passed  me  ten  or  twelve  grains  of  aloes,  contained  in  a  paper,  and  requested  me 
hy  writing  to  <  will  it  to  be  sugar  for  the  somnambulist.'  Aloes  is  known  to  be 
'B.  bitter  drastic.  The  somnambulist  tasted  it,  and  exclaimed,  *  it  is  beautiful.^ 
i  asked  her  what  it  was.  *  Confectionary  sugar,'  said  she,  and  then  swallowed  a 
tongue  full  of  it,  apparently  with  much  pleasure.  But  soon  the  medicine  acted 
'on  her  stomach,  and  she  became  quite  sick. 

On  another  evening,  her  eyes  being  blindfolded,  a  bunch  of  white  grapes  was 
^eld  over  her  forehead  by  a  gentleman  of  the  company,  I  asked  her  what  it  was, 
-<It  is  a  bunch  of  white  fruit,'  said  she.  «  Well,  v.^hat  is  the  name  of  it  ?'  *  I  do 
'not  know  ;  I  cannot  remember  it.'  Then  I  looked  at  her,  and  mentally  articu- 
lated the  word  grape^  willing  her  to  repeat  it.  Instantly  she  shook  her  head 
•  signifying  that  she  understood  me,  and  repeated  aloud,  '  It  is  a  bunch  of  grapes.' 

The  faculty  of  understanding  the  thoughts  and  will  of  those  who  came  in 
^communication  with  them,  was  likewise  remarkably  developed  in  the  ecstatic 
somnambulists, — the  *  possessed  nuns',  of  Loudun,  the  French  Prophets  or 
Shakers  of  the  Ceveunes,  the  Convulsionnaries  de  St.  Medard,  &;c.     This  phe- 


ANIMAL  MAGITETISM.  Tl 

Homcnon  was  so  common  and  striking,  that  it  was  considered  as  the  first  proof 
of  the  reality  of  the  possession,  in  the  case  of  the  ecstatic  nuns  of  Loudun. 
*They  could  reveal  the  most  secret  thoughts,''  These  are  the  very  words  used  in 
the  Juridic  information  concerning  that  celebrated  aftair.  Even  some  of  the 
possessed  persons  had  the  extraordinary  gift  of  understanding  all  languages. 
Although  ignorant,  they  could  answer  correctly,  questions  in  Latin,  Greek,  Ger- 
man, and  even  in  the  dialect  of  some  tribe,  which  one  of  the  visitors  had  learned 
during  a  residence  in  America.  This  last  fact  proves  indisputably,  that  during 
the  very  peculiar  state  of  the  nervous  system,  caused  by  religious  exaltation,  or 
the  magnetic  operation,  the  human  brain  acquires  the  power  of  comprehending 
the  thoughts,  and  will,  in  whatever  language  it  may  be  expressed," 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  we  dissent  from  Mr.  Poyen  in  regard  to 
the  seat  of  spiritual  Hfe.  We  believe  as  he  teaches  that  a  spirit  emanates 
from  the  brain  ;  but  we  hold  that  the  ultimate  centre  of  vital  emanation  is 
the  heart:  by  which  we  mean,  as  we  have  before  explained,  not  the  fleshly 
organ  on  the  left  side  of  the  thorax,  but  a  spiritual  organ,  not  discoverable 
by  dissection,  situated  in  the  middle  of  the  breast.  In  the  present  state  of 
the  Magnetic  philosophy,  (i.  e.  w^hile  the  brain  is  the  grand  centre  of  inves- 
tigation and  experiment,)  its  professors  can  do  but  little  directly  for  the 
benefit  of  the  souls  of  men ;  and  even  their  operations  on  men's  bodies  can 
rise  to  no  higher  rank  than  that  of  auxiliaries  to  the  art  of  ordinary  physi- 
cians. They  may  obtain  information  about  diseases,  and  they  may  produce 
some  superficial  quieting  efiect  on  irritable  nerves ;  but  the  vital  centre  is 
beyond  their  scope  of  operations.  They  may  give  men  the  fruit  of  the  tr§e 
of  knowledge,  but  not  of  the  tree  of  life.  When  their  philosophy  and  ex- 
periments shall  be  transferred  from  the  brain  to  the  heart,  and  their  science 
shall  enlarge  itself  till  it  becomes  Spiritual  Magnetism,  they  will  penetrate 
beyond  the  body  and  the  senses,  to  the  affections,  and  find  out  the  old  Bible 
secret  of  combining  lives ;  of  joining  God  to  man ;  of  producing  righteous- 
ness, unity,  and  health. 

We  dissent  from  Mr.  Poyen  also  on  another  point.  He  makes  a  distinc- 
tion between  cases  that  can  be  explained  by  reference  to  the  sympathy  of 
human  spirits,  and  those  which  cannot  be  so  explained,  such  as  those  in 
which  the  somnambulists  have  the  faculty  of  seeing  or  visiting  places  at  a 
great  distance,  places  unknown  to  themselves  and  those  with  whom  they  are 
in  apparent  communication.  Poyen  doubts  the  reality  of  these  latter  cases. 
We  are  well  persuaded  of  their  reality.  Facts  are  reported  from  time  to 
time,  on  evidence  that  cannot  be  questioned,  showing  that  the  power  of 
clairvoyanee  in  some  cases  far  surpasses  all  the  limits  that  can  reasonably  be 
assigned  to  mere  human  intelligence.  We  do  not  consider  such  facts  inex- 
plicable, as  Poyen  does.  We  explain  them  by  supposing  that  the  clairvoyant 
is  in  communication  with  invisible  superior  intelligences.  To  decide  whether 
the  invisible  auxiliary  in  any  ^ven  case,  is  a  good  or  e\dl  being,  w^e  must 
*  try  the  spirits^  by  scripture  tests.  When  the  object  of  the  wonders  per- 
formed is  evidently  to  pamper  curiosity,  to  exalt  the  creature,  to  gratify 
covetousness  ;  in  short  Avhen  the  affair  has  a  Simon  Magus  aspect,  we  are 
bound  to  recognize  the  agency  of  the  devil.    On  these  principles  we  cannot 


72  AXIMAL  MAGNETISM. 

doubt  that  many  of  the  works  which  the  world  is  wondering  after,  are  prop- 
erly to  be  classed  with  the  '  signs  and  lying  wonders'  of  the  Man  of  sin. 

The  operations  of  niagnetizers  were  formerly  confined  chiefly  to  producing 
the  magnetic  sleep,  and  clairvoyance^  or  the  power  of  seeing  with  the  spirit, 
distant  and  hidden  objects,  and  to  healing  certain  bodily  disorders.  But 
latterly,  by  a  miion  with  Phrenology,  Animal  Magnetism  has  assumed  a  more 
intellectual  aspect,  and  the  sphere  of  its  operations  has  been  greatly  en- 
larged and  dignified.  The  most  curious  development  of  this  Phrenological 
Mesmerism  which  we  have  seen,  was  made  by  I)r.  Buchanan,  of  Kentucky, 
in  1842.  We  extract  the  following  description  of  some  of  liis  experiments 
from  an  article  first  pubhshed  in  the  N.  Y.  Evening  Post.  The  writer  of  the 
article  is  Robert  Dale  Owen — certainly  a  credible  witness,  so  far  as  freedom 
from  superstition  and  credulity  can  make  a  witness  credible  in  such  a  sus- 
picious case.  X 

EXPERIMENTS   OP  DE.    BUCHANAN.  • 

"iVezo  Harmony,  Indiana,  June,  1842. 

"The  most  valid  objection  which  has  been  urged  against  the  claim  of  Phrenol- 
ogy to  a  place  among  the  exact  sciences,  is  the  fact,  that  the  observations  on 
character,  on  which  it  depends  to  demonstrate  the  functions  of  a  particular  organ, 
are  of  a  very  general  nature  ;  and  even  in  their  aggregation,  are  necessarily  con- 
tingent and  inferential,  rather  than  absolutely  demonstrative.  It  is  to  obviate 
this  objection,  that  Dr.  Buchanan's  researches  have  been,  for  years  past,  chiefly 
directed. 

"It  occurred  to  him,  that  if  the  diflerent  portions  or  organs  of  the  brain  could 
be  excited,  so  a?,  to  manifest  on  the  instant,  and  i)i  a  striking  manner,  their  pecu- 
liar function,  then,  what  was  before  only  inference  and  probability,  might  become 
certainty  and  demonstration. 

"  Following  up  this  idea,  Dr  Buchanan  arrived  by  actual  experiments,  at  vari- 
ous results  which  bid  fair  to  solve  at  last  the  great  problem  that  has  divided  the 
scientific  world,  ever  since  the  days  of  Hippocrates  and  his  'animal  spirits,'  down 
through  the  disquisitions  of  Des  Cartes,  to  the  present  day  ;  when  some  physicians 
(Aberneth)'-,  I  believe,  among  the  rest,)  appear  inclined  to  recognize  a  subtile 
fluid  analogous  to  electricity  as  the  prime  agent  in  sensation.  Some  subtile 
agent,  for  which  Dr.  Buchanan  has  retained,  as  most  appropriate,  the  name  of 
*  nervous  fluid,'  appears,  according  to  Dr.  B.'s  discovery,  to  pass,  by  contact,  or 
through  the  medium  of  a  metalhc  or  other  conductor,  from  one  person  to  another. 
Experiments  further  prove,  that  some  temperaments  are  more  capable  of  receiv- 
ing its  impressions,  others  of  communicating  them.  Dr.  B.  found  the  liability 
to  excitement,  or,  as  he  phrases  it,  the  impressibility,  in  some  persons  so  feeble, 
that  hardly  any  effect  could  by  ordinary  means,  be  produced  ;  while  in  others, 
usually  of  a  nervous  temperament,  the  effects  were  so  powerful,  that  great  caro 
was  necessary  in  conducting  his  experiments. 

"  The  number  of  those  whose  brains  are  thus  easily  excited,  he  found  to  be 
comparatively  small ;  yet  in  every  society  of  u  few  hundred  persons,  he  has  been 
able  to  meet  with  some  impressible  subjects.  They  may  usually  be  thus  detected. 
Let  the  operator  grasp  firmly  in  his  hand  any  metallic  conductor,  a  bar  of  steel 
for  example,  and  the  subject  receive  it  loosely  in  his  band,  placed  at  rest,  and  re- 
maining without  muscular  effort ;  if  a  benumbing,  tingling,  sometimes  paintul 
sensation,  occasionally  accompanied  by  a  feeling  of  heat,  be  experienced  in  the 
arm,  often  running  up  to  the  shoulder,  the  subject  is  commonly  impressible. 


ANIMAL  MAGNETISM.  70 

**  Dr.  Buchanan  has  found  several  such  among  us.  The  most  easily  impressed 
was  a  young  man,  T C— —,  about  nineteen,  of  a  quick,  excitable  temper- 
ament, but  in  good  health.  I  have  known  him  from  his  infancy.  He  is  of  one 
of  the  most  respf-.ctable  families   in  this  place,  originally  from   Virginia,    once 

neighbors  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  with  whom  T 's  father  was  well  acquainted. 

He  himself  is  of  quick  parts,  good  common  education,  and  irreproachable  char- 
acter. The  idea  of  simulation  or  wilful  deception  on  his  part  (even  had  the  ex- 
periments been  of  a  nature  to  permit  the  possibility  of  such  arts)  is,  among  us 
who  know  him,  out  of  the  question.  But  the  character  of  many  of  the  effects 
produced  was,  even  to  a  dispassionate  stranger,  such  as  to  stamp  conviction  of 
their  reality. 

"  The  first  experiments  were  made  in  public :  and  the  operator  wrote  on  a  black 
board  behind  the  subject,  the  faculty  or  emotion  which  he  proposed  to  excite. 

"The  results  produced  were,  for  a  time,  chiefly  of  a  pathognomonic  character, 
indicated  by  sudden  change  of  countenance,  gesture  and  attitude.  Those  were 
striking  and  unequivocal. 

"  The  organs  giving  playfulness  and  good  humor,  were  excited ;  and  the  sub- 
ject,  who  had  seemed  somewhat  embarrassed  by  the  novelty  of  his  situation,  bent 
forward,  smiled,  his  arms  relaxed,  his  embarrasment  was  gone,  and  his  whole  air 
was  that  of  ease  and  mirthful  sympathy.  The  effect  was  infectious ;  and  the 
audience  indulged  in  laughter,  in  which,  with  much  apparent  zest,  he  himself 
joined.  Suddenly  the  operator  raised  his  hand,  and  placed  it  on  the  organ  of 
self  esteem.  An  enchanter's  wand  could  not  have  produced  a  transformation 
more  sudden  and  complete.  Every  expression  of  mirth  or  playfulness  vanished 
at  the  touch  ;  the  body  was  thrown  back,  even  beyond  the  perpendicular ;  the 
chin  elevated  ;  the  legs  crossed  consequentially  ;  the  relaxed  arms  drawn  up,  one 
hand  placed  on  the  breast,  the  other  akimbo  ;  a  sidelong  glance  of  the  most 
supercilious  contempt,  cast  on  the  audience,  convulsed  them  with  laughter,  The 
subject  of  their  mirth,  however,  remained  utterly  unmoved  ;  not  a  muscle  of  the 
face  relaxed,  and  the  expression  of  proud  scorn  seemed  to  harden  on  his  counte- 
nance. To  the  questions  of  the  operator  he  either  disdained  to  answer,  or  replied 
in  the  brief  language  of  self-sufficient  impatience.  *  What  do  you  think  of  the 
audience?'  A  look  more  expressive  than  words  was  the  only  reply.  The  ques- 
tion was  repeated,  and  at  last  he  said  :  '  They  look  very  mean,'  Dr.  B. — '  What 
are  they  laughing  at  V     T. — *  That  is  nothing  to  me.' 

"  His  attitude  was  so  theatrical,  that  some  one,  (knowing  that  his  memory  was 
very  retentive,  and  that  he  was  fond  of  dramatical  reading)  suggested  that  he 
should  recite  something.  *  Will  you  recite  something  for  the  audience  V  <  No, 
I  dont  care  to  do  it.'  *  Perhaps  you  dont  know  any  thing  by  heart  V  I  could  if 
I  would,'  The  organs  of  memory,  language  and  imitation  being  excited,  and  it 
having  been  suggested  to  him  that  he  should  select  something  from  the  play  of 
Damon  and  Pythias,  at  last  he  rose,  and,  with  a  tone,  and  look,  and  gesture,  that 
Kean  himself  might  have  envied — such  scornful  and  withering  contempt  did  they 
express — he  recited  the  passage  commencing  : 

'Are  all  content?     A  nation's  rights  betrayed, 
And  all  content  ?     Oh  slaves  !  oh  parricides  I 
Oh  by  the  best  hope  that  a  just  man  has, 
I  blush  to  look  around,  and  call  ye  men.* 

<*  Afler  the  recitation,  he  remained  standing  in  the  loftiest  attitude  of  sarcastic 
scorn,  and  could  hardly  be  persuaded  to  sit  down.  The  chair  seemed  too  small  for 
his  greatness.  At  last  the  operator  touched  the  antagonistic  organs :  and  look, 
tone,  manner,  gesture— all  changed  again  on  the  instant,  so  as  to  imitate  humble, 


T4  ANIMAL  MAGNETISM. 

almost  childish  good  humor.  Another  experiment  was  of  a  more  extraor(Jlnary 
character.  After  writinn;  that  he  would  excite  his  memory  of  past  events,  prd- 
hably  in  early  infancy,  Dr.  Buchanan  touched  the  corresponding  organ.  In- 
stantly the  attitude  and  expression  became  that  of  deep  and  absent  thought ;  the 
body  slightly  advanced,  the  eyes  somewhat  raised,  mild  and  melancholy,  and  fixed 
on  vacancy.  So  classic  and  truthful  was  the  whole  expression,  that  several  a- 
round  me  involuntarily  exclaimed  :  '  A  study  for  a  painter!' 

"In  this  almost  trance-like  frame  of  mind,  he  appeared  disinclined  to  converse; 
but  when  the  question  was  repeated  '  what  he  was  thinking  of?'  he  replied  'Oh, 
of  things  that  happened  long  ago.'  *  What  things  ?'  *  Of  coming  down  the  Ohio 
when  we  cane  here.'     *  How  old  were  you  then?'     'Between  two  and  three/ 

*  What  do  you  remember  about  your  voyage  V  T.  then  related  many  particulars, 
which  his  father  afterward  admitted  were  correct  to  the  letter ;  corroborating 
the  assertion  that  he  was  not  three  years  old  at  the  time.     Dr.  B.  then  said : 

*  What  do  you  expect  to  occupy  yourself  about  tomorrow?'     '1  don't  know/ 

*  Have  not  you  thought  about  it  V  *  No.'  '  Well,  think  about  it  and  let  me  know.' 
No  answer.  'Have  you  thought  about  it  ?'  '  No,  I'd  rather  not.'  *  What  busi. 
ness  would  you  like  to  follow  ?'  (Impatiently)  *  I  know  nothing  about  it ;  I  can^t 
tell.'  '  But  you  can  tell  what  happened  when  you  came  down  the  Ohio?'  *  Oh 
yes.'  And  the  tranquil  and  rapt  expression,  which  this  conversation  had  disturb- 
ed, returned  again,  and  he  repeated  several  additional  particulars.  Suddenly  he 
stopped,  would  answer  no  questions,  burst  into  a  fit  of  tears,  and  his  emotion 
seemed  so  great  and  uncontrollable,  that  the  audience  became  alarmed,  and  Dr. 
B.  hastened  to  calm  the  excitement :  and  touching  the  mirthful  organs,  T.,  with 
his  tears  yet  wet  upon  his  cheek,  laughed  as  gaily  as  if  no  sad  reminiscences 
had  ever  crossed  his  mind. 

"  On  being  subsequently  questioned  as  to  the  cause  of  his  tears  he  said,  that 
all  the  particulars  of  his  grandmother's  death,  (which  happened  after  his  arrival 
here)  rushed  upon  his  mind  with  so  much  vividness  of  reality,  that  he  found  it 
impossible  to  control  his  emotions. 

"  I  remark  here,  that,  in  this  experiment,  there  was  no  leading  question  asked 
that  might  have  tempted  the  mind  back  to  the  remote  past.  Dr.  B.  simply  in- 
quired, *  What  he  was  thinking  of?'  And  every  attempt  which  he  made  by  oth- 
er questions,  to  divert  T's  mind  to  the  future,  proved  ineffectual,  and  seemed  tO 
be  regarded  by  him  as  an  annoying  interruption.     *     *     *     * 

"Another  experiment  was  very  amusing.  After  writing  on  the  board  '  Hunger,* 
Dr.  B.  excited  what  he  calls  the  organ  of  Alimentiveness.  T.  looked  uneasily 
around.  'What  do  you  want  ?'  '  Nothing.'  *  How  do  you  feel  ?'  T. — '  F  m  very 
hungry.'     'Would  you  like  something  to  eat  ?'  (Very  eagerly)  'Yes  that  I  would.' 

*  I  have  sent  tor  something  to  eat.  '  ♦  Have  you  ?'  and  T.*s  gaze  became  imme- 
diately riveted  on  the  outer  door  of  the  lecture  room.  Shortly  after,  the  messen- 
ger returned  with  something  in  a  napkin.  T.'s  eyes  followed  him  as  he  advanced 
to  the  platform  with  such  eager  intentness  as  excited  shouts  of  laughter  in  the 
audience.  The  napkin  contained  some  cold,  stale,  corn  bread,  which  Dr  B.  had 
requested  should,  if  possible,  be  procured.  'Will  you  have  it?'  said  the  Dr. 
•Yes,  yes,  give  it  me ;'  and  T.  snatched  at  it  with  the  eagerness  of  a  famished 
animal,  rather  than  a  human  being  ;and  literally  devoured  it  with  such  ravenous 
rapidity,  that  the  audience  were  in  serious  alarm  lest  he  should  be  choked  on  the 
spot.     *     *      *     * 

"The  private  experiments  took  place  in  the  presence  of  a  small  circle  of  friends, 
nmong  whom  were  two  members  of  the  medical  profession,  residing   here.— 


ANIMAL  MAaNETI3M.  T5 

Pdreviously  to  commencing  these.  Dr.  B.  informed  us,  that  as  his  intention  waa 
to  show  the  absolute  control  which  he  could  exert  over  the  constitution  of  T— 

C ,  he  would  endeavor  to  produce  any  effect  which,  in  writing,  he  might  bo 

requested  to  do.  The  experiments  which  followed,  therefore,  were  either  the 
result  of  a  request  expressed  in  writing  by  one  of  the  party,  or  else  the  Dr.  passed 
around  a  paper  stating  explicitly  the  effect  he  proposed  to  produce, 

"As  Dr.  B.  had  informed  me,  that  he  had  already,  in  some  instances,  produced 

actual  theft,  and  believed  he  could  do  so  in  the  case  of  T C ,  I  asked  him 

(in  private  before  T.  arrived)  to  make  the  attempt.  He  requested  me  to  ar- 
range some  tempting  articles  of  jewelry  on  the  table,  half  concealed  by  a  news- 
paper. I  placed  a  gold  pencil  and  a  signet  ring,  in  accordance  with  his  request, 
and  the  chair  destined  for  T.  was  then  set  so  that  they  were  within  easy  reach. 
The  subject  of  this  strange  experiment  had  scarcely  taken  his  seat,  when,  at  the 
toucli  of  the  Dr's.  fingers,  his  countenance  fell,  his  head  sunk  on  his  bosom,  and 
he  cast  furtive  and  uneasy  glances  around,     *How  do  you  feel,  T.? '  said  the  Dr. 

*  Mean  enough'  was  the  reply,  in  a  tone  that  corresponded  well  with  the  words. 
The  Dr.  then  increased  the  excitement ;  and  the  first  effect  discerned,  was  a 
clutching  motion  of  the  hands.  The  Dr.  changed  the  position  of  his  chair,  so 
that  his  eyes  fell  on  the  pencil  and  seal.  His  hands  seemed  almost  instinctively 
to  approach  them,  but  he  drew  them  back  several  times,  as  if  in  fear  of  detection. 
Those  present  then  began  to  converse  on  different  subjects,  as  if  not  noticing  him. 
After  a  few  minutes  of  listless  uneasiness,  gradually  leaning  over  the  table,  ho 
cautiously  and  dexterously  conveyed  both  pencil  and  seal  to  his  pocket  handker- 
chief, which  he  had  laid  on  his  knee,  and  hastily  wrapped  them  up  in  it ;  his 
countenance  the  while  exhibiting  a  strange  mixture  of  fear  and  eagerness:  it 
was  the  very  impersonation  of  petty  thievery.     Dr.  B.  then  approached  him. 

*  Have  vou  a  pencil,  T.V     T.    replied,  gruffly,   without  raising  his  head,  '  No.* 

*  Why,  I  saw  one  here,  but  this  moment,  what  could  have  become  of  it  ?  Can't 
you  tell  me  V  '  No,  how  should  I  know  V  'You  must  certainly  have  taken  it.* 
'  I  didn't :  I  never  saw  it.'  *  Have  you  really  no  pencil,  then  V  As  Dr.  B.  asked 
this  last  question,  he  touched  some  of  the  honest  organs;  and  T.  raising  hia 
head,  for  the  first  time,  abashed  and  mortified,  gave  up  the  articles  he  had  taken. 

"  I  asked  T.  afterward,  what  his  sensations  were,  during  this  experiment.— 
*They  were  some  of  the  most  disagreeable,'  said  he,  <  I  pver  experienced  :  a  sen. 
sation  of  fear,  overruled  by  a  craving  desire  of  possession  •,  I  dare  say  just  as  a 
thief  really  feels.'  'You  thouccht  the  pencil  very  pretty,'  said  I,  smiiinsj.  'Prettv!* 
said  he,  '  I  thought  I  had  never  seen  anything  so  beautiful  in  all  my  life.  I  felt 
as  if  I  could  go  without  food  for  a  week,  to  get  it  into  my  hands.'  *  *  An  ex. 
periment  succeeded,  which  it  was  frightful  to  witness.  By  passing  his  fingera 
in  a  peculiar  manner,  backward  and  forward,  along  the  medium  line  of  the  sinci- 
put, corresponding  with  the  upper  fissure  of  the  hemispheres  of  the  brain,  the 
effect  appeared  to  be,  to  destroy  all  sense  of  identity ;  to  scatter  the  thoughts,  so 
that  they  could  not  be  collected  on  any  subject ;  and  to  cause  the  legs  and  arms 
to  be  extended  in  opposite> directions,  violently  and  involuntarily.  The  patient 
sometimes  moved  his  head  and  body  to  one  side,  then  to  the  other  ;  seemed  ex- 
cessively restless  and  uneasy  ;  his  eyes  rolled  frightfully  in  their  sockets  ;  and  his 
countenance  indicated  utter  confusion  of  ideas,  and  vague  apprehensions,  almost 
amounting  to  horror.  When  requested  to  strike  his  hands  together,  he  made  the 
effort  unavailingly  ;  when  asked  to  rise  from  his  chair,  it  appeard  that  he  could 
not  do  so  ;  and  when  assisted  to  his  feet,  his  legs  spread  out  laterally  in  so  un» 
natural  a  manner  that  he  could  not  walk ;  and,  being  afraid  he  would  injurs 


76  ANIMAL  MAGNETISM. 

himselt,  we  replaced  him  on  his  chair.     He  did  not  reply  rationally  to  any  of  the 
questions  put  to  him. 

"  When  restored  to  his  senses,  after  this  experiment,  it  was  some  little  time 
before  his  mind  regained  its  equilibrium.  He  complained  of  the  effects  pro- 
duced, as  painful ;  though  his  recollections  of  them  seemed  vague.  He  said  he 
felt  as  if  his  consciousness  was  dissevered ;  and  (as  he  phrased  it)  as  if  '  one 
part  of  his  head  was  thinking  one  way,  and  one  another.'  He  added,  that  he 
experienced  an  impulse  to  go  in  different  directions  at  the  same  tim«.     *     *     * 

"A  series  of  experiments  made  in  Dr.  O.'s  laboratory,  relative  to  the  capabil- 
ities of  different  bodies  to  conduct  the  nervous  fluid,  furnishes  the  following 
general  means.  Of  upward  of  one  hundred  inorganic  bodies,  all  were  more  or 
less  capable  of  transmitting  the  nervous  influence  ;  but  of  theae,  metals  and  me- 
talic  ores  were  the  best  conductors.  Of  organic  bodies,  muscular  tissue  conduc- 
ted the  best,  and  with  more  rapidity  than  metals  ;  whilst  horn,  bone,  whalebone, 
tortoise  shell,  beeswax,  feathers,  and  silk,  but  especially  hair,  appeared  to  be  non 
conductors.  Perhaps,  on  that  account,  hair  is  the  most  suitable  covering  for  the 
head—^the  central  region  of  nervous  action.  It  appeared  also,  that  the  conduc- 
ting  powers  of  substances  augmented  with  their  volume;  and  diminished  as  the 
distance  was  increased  through  which  the  nervous  fluid  had  to  be  communicated. 
A  very  distinct  impression,  however,  was  transmitted,  a  distance  of  forty  feet 
along  an  iron  wire  one  sixth  of  an  inch  in  diameter." 

We  publish  this  account,  partly  for  the  purpose  of  turning  the  attention  of 
our  readers  to  the  singular  position  in  which  Robert  Dale  Owen  has  placed 
himself.  As  an  infidel,  he  rejects  the  evangelists*  account  of  Christ's  mira- 
cles, and  yet  he  has  sent  out  to  the  world,  under  his  own  signature,  with  a 
full  confession  of  belief,  an  account  of  facts,  quite  as  mystical  and  improbable 
as  those  miracles.  Indeed  we  may  say,  that  in  recording  the  experiments 
of  Dr.  Buchanan,  (assuming  that  his  account  of  them  is  correct,)  he  has  be- 
come the  preacher  of  a  theory  which  establishes  the  possibility,  and  explains 
the  philosophy  of  all  the  wonderful  works  by  which  the  origin  of  Christianity 
was  attested.  He  believes  that  Dr.  Buchanan  possesses  an  invisible  energy, 
a  battery  of  nervous  power,  that  is  capable  of  acting  out  of  himself,  on  the 
bodies  and  minds  of  other  persons,  and  in  such  a  manner  as  to  produce  very 
sensible  effects,  both  physical  and  mental ;  and  that  this  power  passes  from 
the  operator  to  the  subject,  by  simple  contact,  or  by  the  medium  of  inanimate 
conductors.  In  the  hght  of  this  theory,  what  is  there  incredible  in  the  ac- 
counts which  we  have  of  Christ's  healing  the  sick  ?  It  is  evident  that  the  ef- 
fect was  produced  by  a  fluid  that  passed  from  him  to  his  patients.  He  usual- 
ly laid  Ids  hands  on  them.  What  was  this  but  a  means  of  establishing  com- 
munication between  him  and  them,  by  which  the  vital  fluid  might  pass  ?  The 
case  of  the  woman  who  was  healed  of  an  issue  of  blood,  recorded  in  Luke  8: 
43 — 48,  shows  positively  that  the  healing  power  of  Jesus  Christ,  was  a  fluid 
that  passed  from  him,  as  electricity  passes  from  the  machine  that  generates  it. 
She  touched  the  hem  of  his  garment  and  was  healed.  And  he  'perceived 
that  virtue  was  gone  out  ofhim.^  Here  is  evidence,  not  only  of  a  transmitted 
fluid,  but  of  the  passage  of  that  fluid,  independently  of  the  will  of  Jesus,  and 
by  means  of  an  inanimate  conductor.  This  is  all  in  accordance  with  the  laws 
of  Animal  Magnetism  as  acknowledged  by  Owen.  At  least  it  does  not  con- 
tradict them,  aud  is  no  more  mystical  thaa  the  operations  of  Pr»  Buchanan, 


ANIMAL  MAGNETISM.  7T- 

It  is  only  necessai'y  to  suppose  that  the  battery  of  vital  energy  in  Jesus 
Christ  was  immensely  stronger  than  in  Dr.  Buchanan — different  in  degree, 
not  in  kind — in  order  to  account  for  the  principal  discrepances  between  Christ's 
system  of  operation,  and  modern  neurology.  The  vital  power  of  Dr.  Bu- 
chanan is  so  feeble  that  he  finds  only  here  and  there  an  indi\4dual  with  nerves 
weak  enough  to  receive  any  sensible  impression  from  him.  Whereas  the 
Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ  was  so  mighty,  that  all  who  applied  to  him  were  found 
*  impressible.'  Dr.  Buchanan  has  power  enough  to  affect  his  subjects  simply 
by  contact,  or  by  means  of  metallic  conductors,  without  going  through  the 
long  and  mj^stical,  not  to  say  nonsensical,  process  of  '  making  the  passes,' 
practised  by  the  older  magnetizers.  But  Jesus  Christ  effected  his  object  in 
many  cases,  by  a  still  more  simple  process.  Though  he  usually  laid  hands 
on  his  patients,  he  healed  many  by  his  simple  command,  without  the  inter- 
vention of  any  visible  conductor.  The  battery  was  so  heavily  charged,  that 
its  fluid  passed  Avhere  faith  attracted  it,  without  any  vehicle,  but  a  word. 
A  few  cases  even  are  recorded,  in  which  cures  were  performed,  without  eith- 
er word  or  contact,  and  with  a  great  distance  between  the  operator  and  the 
subject.  Dr.  Buchanan  could  sensibly  affect  a  person  at  the  distance  of  for- 
ty feet,  by  means  of  a  metallic  conductor.  But  Jesus  Christ  healed  the  cen- 
turion's servant  (Matt.  8;  5)  at  a  distance  probably  of  miles,  and  without 
any  wire  between.  The  centurion's  faith,  which  Christ  pronounced  unparal- 
leled, was  the  only  conductor. 

Perhaps  in  the  progress  of  his  investigation,  Dr.  Buchanan  will  find  means 
to  increase  his  nervous  power,  either  by  self- training,  or  availing  himself  of 
the  power  of  others.  But  he  will  never  approach  equality  with  Christ,  as  a 
practical  neurologist,  till  he  establishes  communication  with  God,  the  great 
source  of  vital  energy.  There  is  no  danger  that  the  miracles  of  Christ  will 
ever  be  rivalled  by  mere  human  neurologists.  The  stream  cannot  rise  above 
its  fountain ;  and  so  long  as  mere  human  life  is  the  fountain  of  magnetic  in- 
fluence, its  effects  will  only  be  proportioned  to  the  w^eakness  of  human  nature. 
Ordinary  animal  magnetizers  may  cast  persons  into  a  trance,  and  awaken  an 
inward  sense  that  shall  give  preternatural  perception.  And  Dr.  Buchanan 
may,  for  the  time  being,  exercise  a  perfect  mastery  over  the  faculties  of  a 
weak-nerved  youth.  But  it  will  be  found  to  require  the  vital  energy  of  God 
to  heal  all  manner  of  diseases — to  raise  the  dead — to  make  a  permanent 
change  from  sin  to  righteousness.     These  are  the  works  of  the  Son  of  God, 

Nevertheless  we  say  again,  that  the  miracles  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  recorded 
by  the  evangelists,  were  evidently,  as  to  their  philosophical  nature,  and  the 
process  by  which  they  were  performed,  operations  of  the  same  kind  with  the 
experiments  of  Dr.  Buchanan ;  certainly  not  more  mysterious — different  only 
in  the  degree  of  their  power.  And  Owen,  if  he  believes  in  Dr.  Buchanan, 
ought  to  believe  in  Jesus  Christ. 

It  is  easy  to  foresee  that  the  development  of  Animal  Magnetism  which  is 
in  progress,  will  ultimately  turn  to  good  account  in  relation  to  many  other 
matters  of  faith,  beside  the  miracles  of  Christ.  The  doctrines  of  the  ^  fel- 
lowship of  spirits,' — of  the  '  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost' — of  the  union 
of  God  and  man — of  Christ  in  the  saints — of  God's  ^  working  in  us  to  TviU 


V 


78  THE   DIVINE  NATURE. 

and  to  do' — of  the  manifestation  of '  God's  righteousness'  in  human  nature — 
of  the  workings  of  Satan  in  the  ungodly — and  diabohcal  possession  ;  in  short, 
all  the  spiritual  doctrines  of  the  Bible  will  cease  to  be  regarded  as  mystical 
and  irrational,  when  the  principles  of  neurology,  as  acknowledged  by  Owen, 
are  admitted  to  be  true,  and  are  followed  out  to  their  consequences.  If  man 
can  operate  on  his  fellow  man,  so  as  to  produce  any  variety  of  moral  charac- 
ter at  ])leasure,  why  should  it  be  thought  an  incredible  thing  that  the  omnip- 
otent God  should  take  a  permanent  possession  of  the  human  faculties,  and 
through  them  manifest  his  own  perfect  righteousness?  And  on  the  other  hand 
if  Dr.  Buchanan  could  make  his  subjects  thievish,  or  insane,  by  a  touch  of  his 
fingers,  is  there  any  difficulty  in  believing  that  Satan  is  actually  the  father 
of  the  evil  works  which  the  Bible  ascribes  to  him  ;  that  he  'entered  into^  Judas, 
for  instance,  and  caused  him  to  betray  Christ ;  or  that  th«  insane  wretches 
whom  Christ  exorcised,  were  actually  possessed  of  devils  ?  In  a  word,  if  hu- 
man nature  is  an  mstrument,  the  strings  of  which  answer  to  the  touch  of  flesh 
and  blood,  may  we  not  well  believe  that  it  is  subject  to  the  mastery  of  the 
good  and  evil  powers  of  the  spiritual  world  ? 

On  the  whole,  we  are  persuaded  that  the  carnal  philosophers  and  infidels 
who  are  investigating  and  advocating,  or  giving  their  assent  to  the  principles 
of  animal  magnetism,  will  find  themselves,  ere  long,  shut  up  to  the  faith  of  the 
gospel  of  him  whom  they  now  despise. 


§  12.    THE  DIVINE  NATURE, 

In  the  first  chapters  of  the  Bible,  we  find  clear  intimations  of  a  plurality 
of  persons  in  the  Godhead.  The  Hebrew  word  which  is  translated  God,  in 
Gen.  1:  1,  &c.,  is  in  the  plural  form.  God  is  represented  as  conversing 
with  himself,  as  though  two  persons  were  consulting  together.  Gen.  1:  26, 
8:  22,  11:  7.  The  plural  pronouns  us  and  our^  are  so  interaiingled  with 
the  singular  pronouns  he  and  Am?,  in  Gen,  1:  26,  27,  that  we  can  see  no 
propriety  in  the  language  -except  on  the  supposition,  that  there  is  at  once 
unity  and  plurality  in  the  constitution  of  God.  Above  all,  it  is  declared  that 
he  '  made  man  in  his  oivn  imagef  (Gen.l:  27;)  and  from  what  follows  this 
■declaration,  it  clearly  appears,  that  the  word  man  in  this  case  includes  two 
persons,  male  and  femalq.  The  singular  and  plural  pronouns  are  intermin- 
_gled,  in  the  language  concerning  the  first  man,  in  ^^  same  manner  as  they 
are  intermingled  in  the  language  concerning  God.  Adam  was  the  name  of 
a  male  and  female  being,  concerning  which  the  pronouns  him  and  them 
might  be  used  promiscuously.  Gen.  1:  27,  5:  1,  2.  Taking  this  being  as 
^n  image  or  miniature  by  which  we  are  to  form  our  conception  of  the  nature 
of  God,  (we  speak  of  things  spiritual,  not  physical,)  we  are  led  to  the  sim- 
ple conclusion,  that  the  uncreated  Creator,   the  Head  of  the  universe,  like 


THE  DIVINE  NATURE.  t§ 

the  head  of  mankind  and  the  head  of  every  family,  though  one,  is  yet  Hwain;' 
(Mark  10:  8  ;)  in  a  word,  that  the  creation  has  a  Father  and  a  Mother. 

The  x^evf  Testament  confirms  and  illustrates  this  conclusion.  We  there 
learn  that  as  Eve  was  in  the  beginning  with  Adam,  and  was  Adam,  so  '  the 
Word  was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  and  was  God ;'  (Jno.  1:  1 ;)  that 
as  '  the  man  is  the  head  of  the  woman,'  so  '  God  is  the  head  of  Christ ;' 
(1  Cor.  11:  3 ;)  that  as  '  the  woman  is  the  glory  of  the  man,'  (1  Cor. 
11:  7,)  so  Christ  is  the  glory  of  God  ;  (Heb.  1:  3  ;)  that  as  the  woman  is 
the  *  weaker  vessel,'  (1  Pet.  3:  7,)  so  the  Father  is  greater  than  the  Sen ; 
John  14:  28;)  that  as  Eve  was  '  the  mother  of  all  living,'  (Gen.  3:  20,) 
so  '  by  the  Word  all  things  were  made  ;'  (Jno.  1:  3,  Col.  1: 16,  Heb.  1:  2 ;) 
that  as  the  mother  suffers  for  the  birth  of  children,  so  Christ  suffered  for  the 
birth  of  the  church. 

We  do  not  find  the  Spirit  of  God  represented  in  scripture  as  a  distinct 
person,  like  the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  but  as  an  emanation  from  those  per- 
sons— a  living  substance,  fluid-like,  (Acts  2:  17,  &c.,)  proceeding  from  the 
Father,  (Jno.  15:  26,)  bearing  the  same  relation  to  him  as  a  man's  spirit 
bears  to  a  man.  1  Cor.  2:  11. 

Having  thus  in  brief  and  general  terms  apprised  the  reader  of  our  position 
in  relation  to  the  grand  controversy  about  the  Godhead,  we  will  now  exam- 
ine somewhat  minutely,  a  single  New  Testament  witness,  whose  testimony 
is,  in  our  view,*  plain  and  to  the  point.  The  first  epistle  of  John  was  written 
in  the  ripest  period  of  the  apostolic  age,  and  is  certainly  orthodox.  We  will 
rest  our  case  upon  its  testimony.  What  is  its  doctrine  concerning  the  God- 
head ? 

Doubtless  the  passage  which  will  first  occur  to  the  reader  as  the  strongest 
testimony  to  be  found  in  the  1st  epistle  of  John,  or  even  in  the  whole  Bi- 
ble, in  relation  to  the  nature  of  the  Godhead,  is  the  declaration  concerning 
the  three  heavenly  witnesses,  in  chap.  5:  7,- — 'There  are  three  that  bear 
record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holv  Ghost ;  and  these 
three  are  one.'  But  unfortunately  for  the  Trinitarian  theory,  that  passage 
has  been  abundantly  proved  to  be  spurious.  Adam  Clarke,  a  laborious  critic 
and  strong  Trinitarian,  says  in  his  introduction  to  the  first  epistle  of  John : — 

"  On  the  controverted  text  of  the  three  heavenly  witnesses  I  have  said  what 
truth,  and  a  deep  and  thorough  examination  of  the  subject  has  obliged  me  to  say. 
I  am  satisfied  that  it  is  not  geiiuine ;  though  the  doctrine  in  behalf  of  which  it 
has  been  originally  introduced  into  the  epistle  is  a  doctrine  of  the  highest  im- 
portance, and  most  positively  revealed  in  various  parts  both  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament." 

We  extract  from  his  dissertation  at  the  end  of  the  epistle,  the  following 
^Sumrnary  of  the  whole  evidence  relative  to  the  three  heavenly  tvitnesses' : — 

"  1.  One  hundred  and  thirteen  Greek  MSS.  are  extant,  containing  the  first 
epistle  of  John  ;  and  the  text  in  question  (1  John  5:  7)  is  wanting  in  one  hun- 
dred and  twelve.  It  only  exists  in  the  Codex  Montfortii,  a  comparatively  recent 
manuscript. 

"  2.  All  the  Greek  fiithers  omit  the  verse,  though  many  of  them  quote  verse  6 
and  verse  8  ;  applying  them  to  the  Trinity  and  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  Holy 


80  THE  DIVINE  NATURE. 

Spirit ;  yea,  and  endeavoring  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  from  verse  6 
and  verse  8,  without  referring  to  any  such  verse  as  the  7th,  which,  had  it  existed, 
would  have  been  a  more  positive  proof,  and  one  that  could  not  have  been  over- 
looked, 

"  3.  The  fisrt  place  where  the  verse  appears  in  Greek,  is  in  the  Greek  translation 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Lateran,  held  A.  D.  1215. 

"4.  Though  it  is  found  in  many  Latin  copies,  yet  it  does  not  appear  that  any 
written  previously  to  the  tenth  century  contains  it. 

*'  5.  The  Latin  fathers  do  not  quote  it,  even  where  it  would  have  greatly 
strengthened  their  arguments ;  and  where,  had  it  existed,  it  might  have  been  most 
naturally  expected. 

"6.  Vigilius,  bishop  of  Tapsum,  at  the  conclusion  of  th^Sth  century,  is  the 
first  who  seems  to  have  referred  expressly  to  the  three  heavenly  witnesses  ;  but 
his  quotation  does  not  agree  with  the  present  text,  either  in  words  or  in  sense ; 
and  besides,  he  is  a  writer  of  very  little  credit,  nor  does  the  place  alleged  appear 
to  learned  men  to  be  genuine. 

"  7.  The  Latin  writers  who  do  refer  to  the  three  heavenly  witnesses,  vary 
greatly  in  their  quotations  ;  the  more  ancient  placing  the  8th  verse  before  the 
7th  ;  a-nd  very  many  omitting,  after  tho  earthly  witnesses,  the  clause  these  three 
are  one.  Others  who  insert  these  three  are  one,  add — in  Christ  Jesus ;  others  use 
different  terms. 

"  8.  It  is  wanting  in  all  the  ancient  versions,  the  vulgate  excepted  ;  but  the 
more  ancient  copies  of  this  have  it  not ;  and  those  which  have  it  vary  greatly 
among  themselves. 

"9.  It  is  wanting  in  the/r<?^  edition  of  Erasmus,  A.  D.  1516,  which  is  prop- 
erly the  editio  princeps  of  the  Greek  text.  It  is  wanting  also  in  his  second  edi- 
tion, 1519  ;  but  is  added  in  the  third  from  the  Codex  Montfortii,  It  is  wanting 
in  the  editions  of  Aldus,  Gerbelius,  Cephalius,  &c.  It  is  wanting  in  the  German 
translat'on  of  Luther,  and  in  all  the  editions  o^  it  published  during  his  lifetime. 
It  is  inserted  in  our  early  English  translations,  but  with  marks  of  doubtfidness, 

"  10.  In  short,  it  stands  on  no  authority  sufficient  to  authenticate  any  part  of 
a  revelation  professing  to  have  come  from  God." 

Let  the  reader  examine  the  train  of  thought  from  the  4th  verse  to  the 
10th,  and  he  will  see  for  himself  that  the  7th  verse  has  the  marks  of  an  in- 
terpolation. The  subject  of  discourse  is  not  the  nature  of  the  Godhead,  but 
overcoming  faith,  and  the  power  which  gives  birth  to  it  in  believers.  Having 
proposed  the  Son  of  God  as  the  object  of  faith  in  the  5th  verse,  the  apostle, 
in  the  6th,  brings  to  view  the  influences  emanating  from  him,  which  give  the 
testimony  on  which  faith  rests.  'This  is  he  that  came  ly  water  and  bloody 
even  Jesus  Christ ;  .  .  .  A^id  it  is  the  Spirit  that  beareth  witness,  because 
the  Spirit  is  truth.  [Here  follows  the  interpolation,  which  we  omit.]  For 
there  are  three  that  bear  record,  the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood;  and 
these  three  agree  in  one."*  This  is  the  original  form  of  the  passage.  It  is 
obviously  all  that  the  subject  of  discourse  requires.  The  witnesses  that  work 
faith  in  believers,  are  defined ;  and  any  extraneous  discourse  about  the  Trin- 
ity or  about  witnesses  in  heaven  and  earth,   would  be  a  senseless  digression. 

Setting  aside  this  spurious  text,  we  find  that  the  epistle  clearly  teaches 
that  the  Godhead  consists  of  two  persons — the  Father  and  the  Son.  The 
divinity  of  Christ  is  every  where  insisted  on.    He  is  called  '  the  Word  of  Life 


THE  DIVINE  NATURE.  81 

wliieJi  was  from  the  heginning^^   '  that  eternal  life  which  ivas  with  the  Fa- 
ther,^ (1: 1,  2,)  't?ie  true  God  and  eternal  Life.''  (5:  20.)     He  is  coupled 
"with   the   Father  in  a  multitude  of  instances  as  the  co-ordinate  partner  in 
th^  AYOrk  of  salvation;  e.  g.,  ^Our  fellow shijJ  is  with  the  Father ^  and  with 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ;'*  (1:  3  ;)   'The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth 
us  from  all  sinf  (1:  7;)     'We  have  an  advocate  with  the  Father^  Jesus 
Christ  the  righteous  ;  and  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sinsf  (2:  1,  2  ;) 
'Ye  shall  continue  in  the  Son  and  in  the  Father;^  (2:  24  ;)  '  Giod  sent  his 
only  begotten  Son  into  the  world  that  we  might  live  through  him  ;'  (4:  9  ;) 
'The  Father  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  Savior  of  the  world.'  (4: 14.)     His  pre- 
existence  is  recognized  in  all  those  passages  which  speak  of  hjm  as  having 
been  'with  the  Father  from  the  beginning,'  as  having  been  'manifested,''  'sent 
into  the  world,'  as  having  'come  in  the  flesh.'     His  distinct  personality  is 
recognized  in  the  appellation  which  is  constantly  given  him  of  'Son,'  or  'Son 
of  Qod-'  as  also  where  he  is  called  our  'advocate  with  the  Father.'     Indeed, 
the  main  labor  of  the  epistle  is  to  establish  the  faith  of  the  church  in  the  di- 
vinity of  Christ,  and  his  incarnation,  as  being  the  very  corner-stone  of  salva- 
tion.    The  antichrists  against  whom  the  apostle  chiefly  warns  believers,  are 
they  who  'deny  the  Son,'  (2:  24,)    who  'confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
come  in  the  flesh;'  (4:  3  ;)  and  he  makes  the  recognition  of  Christ's  sonship 
and  incarnation,  the  very  test-mark  of  the  true  believer :  e.  g.,  'Hereby  know 
ye  the  spirit  of  Crod ;  every  spirit  that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
in  the  flesh,  is  of  Giod;'  '  Whosoever  shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of 
God,   God  dwelleth  in  him,  and  he  in  God;'  (4:  2,  15  ;)    'Whosoever  be- 
lieveth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  boym  of  God  ;'  '  Who  is  he  that  overcometk 
the  tuorld,  but  he  that  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  Godf  (5:  1,  5.) 
On  the  other  hand  there  is  not  an  intimation  in  the  whole  epistle  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  a  distmGt  person  of  the  Godhead.     It  is  spoken  of  as  an  '  unc- 
tiojifrom  the  Holy  One;'  an  'anointing  received  from  Him;'  (2:  20,  27  ; ) 
'the  spirit  which  he  hath  given  us.'    3:  24,  4:  13.      In  all  these  expressions 
the  idea  manifestly  is,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  itself  a  divine  person,  but 
an  emanation  from  a  divine  person.     In  ch.  4:  2,  3,  the  spirit  of  God  is  con- 
trasted with  the  spirit  of  Antichrist ;    and  it  might  as  well  be  said  that  the 
spirit  of  Antichrist  is  a  person  distinct  from  Antichrist,  as  that  the  spirit  of 
God  is  a  person  distinct  from  God.     So  in  ch.  5:  8,  the  spirit  is  classed  with 
the  water  and  blood  of  Christ ;   and   any  one  of  the  three  may  as  well  be 
called  a  divine  person  as  the  first. 

The  discourse  of  Christ  in  the  14th,  15th  and  16th  of  John,  where  he 
speaks  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  personal  instructor  and  '  comforter,'  applying 
to  it  the  pronouns  he,  him,  &c.,  (see  John  14:  16 — 26, 15:  26, 16:  7,  &c.,) 
has  perhaps  as  strong  an  appearance  of  favoring  the  doctrine  of  the  person- 
ality of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  any  part  of  scripture.  And  yet  on  comparing 
1  John  2:  20,  27,  with  that  discourse,  we  perceive  that  the  apostle  had  ui 
mind  the  very  agency  which  Christ  promised  under  the  appellation  of  '  the 
comforter  ;'  and  there  calls  it  an  '  unction  from  the  Holy  One' — an  '  anoint- 
ing received' — and  applies  to  it  the  pronoun  it.  There  is  no  good  reason 
why  John  should  have  used  impersonal  language,  if  he  had  regarded  the 


SSi  THE  DIVINE  NATURE. 

Holy  Ghost  as  a  personal  being ;  but  there  is  a  good  reason  why  Christ 
fihoiild  have  personified  the  spiritual  influences  which  he  promised,  though  in 
reality  they  were  impersonal.  He"  wished  to  console  his  disciples  in  the 
prospect  of  his  oa\t:i  departure  ;  and  in  their  state  of  intelligence,  it  was 
necessary  that  he  should  personify  his  promised  substitute,  in  order  that  they 
might  appreciate  it. 

We  beheve  that  any  intelligent,  unbiassed  mind,  taking  this  epistle  for  its 
guide,  would  never  doubt  the  divinity  of  Christ,  nor  ever  surmise  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  ultra-Trinitarians  of  modern  times,  not  only  insist  that  there  are  three 
persons  in  tlje  Godhead,  but  that  these  persons  are  entirely  equal.  It  w^ill 
be  seen  that  our  theory  is  opposed  to  the  last  as  well  as  to  the  first  of  these 
dogmas.  That  the  reader  may  see  the  difference  between  modern  and 
ancient  orthodoxy  on  the  subject  of  the  equality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father, 
and  also  that  we  may  have  occasion  of  exhibiting  our  own  views  more  fully, 
"we  present  the  following  extract  from  an  Excursus  in  Stuart's  Commentary 
on  Romans: 

"If  the  Son  as  God  be  derived  or  begotten,  then  it  must  follow,  that  as  God  he 
is  neither  self-existent  nor  independent.  It  is  of  no  avail  to  say  here,  that  his 
generation  is  eternal,  and  that  the  method  of  it  is  mysterious,  super-human,  and 
unHke  to  that  of  any  created  substance  ;  for  one  may  very  readily  allow  all  thisj 
and  still  ask,  whether  the  word  generation  (let  the  manner  of  the  thing  be  what 
it  may)  does  not  of  necessity,  and  by  the  usage  of  every  language,  imply  deriva- 
tion ?  And  whether  derivation  does  not  of  necessity  imply  dependence,  and  there- 
fore negative  the  idea  of  self -existence  1  This  the  ancient  fathers  acknowledged 
almost  with  one  voice,  asserting  that  Christ  is  not  God  self  existent,  but  derived 
from  the  Father  and  begotten  of  his  substance.  The  Father  only  they  regarded  as 
self-existent ;  not  deeming  it  compatible  at  all  with  the  idea  of  generation,  that 
the  Son  could  vindicate  to  himself  this  attribute  of  divinity.  So  the  Nicene  fa- 
thers call  the  Logos,  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light.  They  did  tj'uly  and  really 
regard  the  Logos  as  an  emanation  from  the  Father  ;  many  of  the  fathers,  (most 
of  the  earlier  ones,)  as  an  emanation  from  him  which  took  place  in  time,  or  rather 
perhaps  an  emanation  just  before  time  began.  Hence  the  familiar  phrase  among 
them,  Logos  endiathetos,  i.  e.  Logos  which  was  in  God  as  his  reason,  wisdom,  or 
understanding,  from  eternity ;  and  Logos  prophorikos,  i.  e.  Logos  prophoric, 
uttered,  developed,  viz.  by  words.  This  development  many  of  them  supposed  was 
made  when  God  said,  *  Let  there  be  light;'  others  supposed  it  to  have  been  still 
earlier,  viz.  at  the  period  when  God  formed  the  plan  of  the  world,  Etnd  thus  gave 
development  to  his  internal  logos,  by  the  operations  of  his  wisdom  and  under- 
standing. 

*'  Prof.  Tholuck,  in  his  recent  commentary  on  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  ap- 
pears fully  to  maintain  (with  the  ancient  Fathers)'  the  dependence,  and  to  deny 
the  self  existence,  of  the  Logos  ;  while  with  them,  he  strenuously  maintains  that 
Christ  is  God.  But  one  who  is  so  earnestly  desirous  of  seeking  after  truth  as  he 
is,  will  not  take  it  amiss,  I  trust,  if  the  inquiry  be  here  made :  Whether  the  hu. 
man  mind  can  conceive  a  being  to  be  truly  God,  who  is  neither  self  existent  nor 
independent  ?  If  the  Son  have  neither  of  these  attributes,  then  is  he  indeed,  what 
gome  of  the  Fathers  have  called  him,  a  second  God,  and  nothing  more.  I  will 
not  aver  that  those  are  Arians  and  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ,  who  believe  this; 


THE   DIVINE   NATURE.  81 

feut  I  must  say,  that  for  myself,  if  I  admitted  this,  I  could  make  no  serious  objec- 
tion to  the  system  of  Arius,  The  whole  dispute  between  him  and  those  who  main- 
tain this  creed,  must  turn  on  the  difference  between  being  begotten  and  being 
made;  both  parties  virtually  acknowledge  derivation  and  dependence;  they  differ 
only  as  to  the  time  and  manner  of  these.  Can  such  topics  as  these,  which  of 
course  must  be  mere  mysteries,  be  properly  made  a  serious  occasion  of  division 
or  alienation  among  those  who  bear  the  Christian  name  ? 

"  The  philosophy  of  the  fathers  permitted  them  to  believe  in  a  divine  nature 
derived.  Of  course  they  could  maintain  the  generation  of  the  Son  as  Logos, 
without  any  difiiculty.  But  that  we  can  now  admit  a  being  to  be  truly  GoJ, 
and  to  worship  him  as  such,  who  as  to  his  divine  nature  is  derived  and  dependent^ 
does  seem  to  me  quite  impossible.  The  very  elements  of  my  own  views  (to  say 
the  least)  respecting  the  divine  nature  must  be  changed,  before  I  can  admit  such 
a  proposition. 

"To  say  that  the  Son  is  eternally  begotten,  and  yet  is  self -existent  and  indepen- 
dent, IS  merely  to  say  that  the  word  begotten  does  not  imply  derivation;  it  is  to 
deny  that  the  word  has  any  such  meaning,  as  all  antiquity  and  common  usage 
have  always  ascribed  to  it.  It  is,  moreover,  to  give  up  the  very  ^octrine  which 
the  ancient  church  strenuously  maintained.  Tholuck,  who  appears  to  maintain 
the  views  of  the  Nicene  creed,  says  (on  Rom.  9:  5)  :  *  The  Father  is  the  original 
source  of  all  being,  (1  Cor.  8:  6.  John  5:  26  ;)  the  Son  is  only  the  image  of  his 
being.  Col.  1:  15;  2  Cor.  4:  4;  Heb.  1:  3.  But,  as  being  the  image  of  the 
divine  Being,  the  Son  is  in  no  respect  different  from  the  Father,  but  fully  express- 
es the  Being  of  God.  As  the  church  is  wont  to  say ;  The  attribute  olself-exis- 
tence  is  possessed  only  by  the  Father.'  Much  as  I  respect  this  excellent  man 
and  critic,  how  can  I  receive  and  accredit  these  declarations  ?  *  The  Son  is  in 
no  respect  different  from  the  Father,  but  fully  resembles  or  expresses  the  being  of 
God  ;'  and  yet  to  the  Son  belongs  neither  self-existence  nor  independence,  but 
they  are  attributes  which  belong  exclusively  to  the  Father?  What  is  this  more 
or  less  than  to  say  :  The  Son  is  perfectly  like  the  Father  ir.  all  respects  ;  and  yet 
in  regard  to  that  very  attribute  which  beyond  all  others  united  makes  God  to  be 
what  he  is,  viz.  true  and  very  God,  u  e.  in  respect  to  self-existence,  (and  of 
course  independence,)  the  Son  has  no  participation  at  all  in  this,  but  it  belongs 
exclusively  to  the  Father.  In  other  words  :  The  Son  is  in  all  respects  like  the 
Father,  with  the  simple  exception  that  he  is,  in  regard  to  the  most  essential  of  all 
his  attributes,  infinitely  unlike  him.  If  this  does  not  lie  on  the  very  face  of  Prof, 
Tholuck's  statement,  and  on  that  of  all  who  hold  that  the  Logos  is  a  derived  Be- 
ing, then  I  acknowledge  myself  incapable  of  understanding  either  their  words 
or  their  arguments." 

We  do  not  feel  the  force  of  Prof.  Stuart's  reasoning.  In  our  view,  the 
term  Crod,  both  according  to  common  sense,  and  according  to  the  scriptures, 
designates  primarily  the  uncreated  Creator.  Whoever  created  all  things, 
ought  to  be  worshiped  by  all  creatures,  and  is  therefore  God,  Thus  John 
proves  the  divbaity  of  Christ ;  'In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the 
Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  The  same  was  in  the  begin- 
ning witb-  God.  All  things  were  made  by  Mm,  and  ivithout  him  ivas  not 
any  thing  made  that  ivas  made  J  John  1:  1,  2.  Here  nothing  is  said  about 
the  independence  of  the  Word.  His  co-existence  mth  God  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  his  office  of  creation,  are  put  forward  obviously,  as  the  proof  of  hi3 
claim  to  the  name  and  worship  of  God.     (So  Paul,  Col.  1: 16,) 


$4  THE  DIVINE  NATURE. 

The  Bible  idea  of  the  Godhead  is  very  simple.  It  has  its  type  in  eYery 
family.  As  the  father  and  mother  are  to  the  household,  so  the  Father  and 
the  Word  are  to  the  created  universe.  The  twofold  head  of  a  household,  is 
regarded  as  one  by  the  law ;  and  the  first  father  and  mother  of  mankind 
were  in  truth  spiritually  one.  Eve  derived  her  being  from  Adam, — and  as 
a  separate  person,  was  the  '  weaker  vessel'  of  the  same  spirit.  This  is 
the  *  image  of  God,'  '  the  mystery  of  God,  ,  and  of  the  Father,  and  of 
Christ.'  Col.  2:  2.  Now  it  is  not  necessary,  in  order  to  make  out  the 
obligation  of  children  to  reverence  and  obey  their  mother,  that  we  should 
prove  her  to  be  in  all  respects  equal  to  the  father.  It  is  enough  that  she 
is  co-ordinate  with  him  in  her  relation  to  the  family, — that  she,  as  well 
as  he,  existed  before  the  children,  and  was  the  cause  of  their  existence. — 
So  the  fact  that  the  Word  is  co-existent  with  the  Father,  and  co-ordinate 
with  him  in  the  work  of  creation,  entitles  him  to  the  name  of  God,  and  the 
worship  of  man,  w^hether  he  is  independent  of  the  Father  or  not. 

We  do  not  believe  that  the  Word  was  created^  or  begotten,  or  that  he  ema- 
nated  from  the'  Father,  in  any  such  sense  as  to  imply  that  his  existence  had 
a  beginning.  We  can  as  easily  conceive  that  the  relation  which  subsisted 
between  Adam  and  Eve, — viz.  that  of  one  person  deriving  life  from,  and 
therefore  dependent  on,  another, — existed  from  eternity  in  the  Godhead,  as^ 
"We  can  conceive  of  eternal  existence  at  all. 

In  order  that  we  may  fully  define  our  position  in  relation  to  the  Unitarian 
as  well  as  the  Trinitarian  scheme,  we  will  conclude  this  article  with  an  ex- 
amination of  what  we  regard  as  the  most  imposing  form  of  Unitarianismy, 
viz.  the  scheme  of  Swedenborg. 

Though  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  largely  insisted  upon  in  all  his  writings, 
yet  Swedenborg  was  not  a  Trinitarian.  The  unity  of  the  Godhead  is  as 
prominent  an  article  in  his  creed  as  it  is  m  that  of  Unitarians  or  Mahometans. 
He  acknowledges  a  trinity  in  one  person,  but  not  a  trinity  of  persons.  His 
doctrine  is  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  are  the  soul,  body,  and 
spirit  of  one  person.  The  following  (from  his  treatise  on  the  'Athanasian 
Creed,'  §17)  may  serve  as  a  specimen  of  a  large  amount  of  discourse  which 
may  be  found  in  his  writings  on  this  subject : 

"  That  in  the  Lord  there  is  a  trine,  the  I>ivine  Itself  which  is  called  the  Fa- 
ther, the  Divine  Human  which  is  called  the  Son,  and  the  Divine  Proceeding 
which  is  called  the  Holy  Spirit,  may  be  manifest  from  the  Word,  from  the  Divine 
Essence,  and  from  Heaven.  From  the  Word ;  where  the  Lord  himself  teachea 
that  the  Father  and  he  are  one,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds  from  him  and' 
from  the  Father ;  also,  where  the  Lord  teaches  that  the  Father  is  in  him  and  he 
in  the  Father,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  which  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  does  not 
speak  from  himself  but  from  the  Lord  :  in  like  manner,  from  passages  in  the  old' 
Word,  where  the  Lord  is  called  Jehovah,  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel.  From  the  Divine  Essence  ;  that  one  Divine  by  itself  is  not  given,  but 
there  is  a  trine ;  this  trine  consists  of  esse,  existere,  and  proceeding,  for  esse 
must  needs  exist,  and  when  it  exists  must  proceed  that  it  may  produce,  and  this 
trine  is  one  essence  and  one  in  person,  and  is  God.  This  may  be  illustrated  by 
comparison  ;  an  angel  of  heaven  is  trine  and  thereby  one  ;  the  esse  of  an  angeF 
m  that  which  is  called  his  soul,  and  bis  existere  is  that  which  is  called  his  body,. 


THE   DIVINE   NATURE.  Sil 

and  the  proceeding  from  both  is  that  which  is  called  the  sphere  of  his  life,  without 
which  an  angel  neither  exists  nor  is.  By  this  tiine  nn  angel  is  an  image  of  God^ 
and  is  called  a  Son  of  God,  and  also  an  heir,  yea,  also  a  God  ;  nevertheless^  an 
angel  is  not  life  from  himself,  but  is  a  recipient  of  life  ;  God  alone  is  life  from 
himself.  From  Heaven ;  the  trine  Divine,  which  is  one  in  essence  and  in  per- 
son, is  such  in  heaven  ;  for  the  Divine  which  is  called  the  Father,  and  the  DiVind 
Human  which  is  called  the  Son,  appears  there,  before  the  angels,  as  a  sun,  and 
the  Divine  Proceeding  thence  as  light  united  to  heat — the  light  being  divine 
truth,  and  the  heat  being  divine  good  ;  thus,  the  Divine  which  is  called  the  Fa- 
ther, is  the  Divine  esse,  the  Divine  Human  which  is  called  the  Son,  is  the  Di- 
vine existere  from  that  esse,  and  the  Divine  which  is  called  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 
the  divine  proceeding  from  that  divine  existere  and  from  the  divine  esse.  This 
trine  is  the  Lord  in  heaven  ;  his  divine  love  is  what  appears  as  a  sun  there." 

It  will  be  perceived  that  Swedenborg  was  not  a  Unitarian  in  the  usual 
sense  of  the  term  ;  i.  e.  he  did  not  teach  that  Christ  was  a  man  or  an  angel,- 
but  that  he  was  one  of  the  component  parts  of  the  Divine  Being— the  body^ 
as  it  were,  of  which  the  Father  was  the  soul. 

The  doctrine  against  which  Swedenborg's  theory  is  specially  arrayed  is 
that  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  formerly  the  accredited  standard  of  universal 
orthodoxy,  which  teaches  that  there  are  three  equal  persons  in  the  Godhead.- 
With  that  doctrine  w^e  have  no  concern.  In  what  we  have  to  say,  we  shall 
answer  simply  for  our  own  views,  which  are,  that  the  Godhead  consists  of 
two  persons,  the  Father  and  the  Word,  who  are  not  equal,  but  bear  a  rela- 
tion to  each  other  like  that  which  exists  between  man  and  woman,  and  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  their  joint  effluence  or  radiating  sphere. 

On  this  subject,  as  on  all  others,  Swedenborg  is  fond  of  cutting  short  all 
argument  and  appealing  directly  to  intuition.  Thus  he  says  in  his  treatise 
on  Divine  Love  and  Wisdom,  §23 — 

"All  the  principles  of  human  reason  agree,  and  as  it  were  concentre  in  this, 
that  there  is  one  God,  the  Creator  of  the  universe ;  wherefore  a  reasonable  man, 
by  virtue  of  the  common  principle  of  understanding,  thinks  no  otherwise,  and 
can  think  no  otherwise.  Tell  any  man  of  sound  reason  that  there  are  two  crea- 
tors of  the  universe,  and  you  will  find  in  yourself  a  repugnance  thence  arising^ 
and  possibly  from  the  bare  sound  of  the  words  in  your  ear ;  whence  it  is  evident 
that  all  the  principles  of  human  reason  join  and  concentre  in  this,  that  God  is^ 

ONE." 

We  scruple  not  to  avow  that  w^e  have  no  such  intuition  as  is  here  described^ 
and  that  we  regard  the  assertion  of  its  universal  existence  as  a  sheer  assump- 
tion. Our  minds  are  so  constructed  that  we  never  feel  the  force  of  that  kind 
of  a  priori  reasoning  or  talk  which  undertakes  to  tell  what  the  limits  of  un-^ 
created  existence  must  he,  without  looking  at  the  facts  w^hich  testify  what 
they  are.  Our  difficulty  is  in  conceiving  of  eternal  past  existence  at  alL 
But  we  knoAv  that  something  has  existed  from  eternity,  because  something, 
exists  now  ;  and  when  we  have  past  this  point,  we  can  as  easily  conceive,- 
before  examining  e\4dence,  that  there  are  a  thousand  uncreated  beings  as 
that  there  is  one.  The  necessity  of  absolute  unity  as  the  sole  occupant  of^ 
the  sphere  back  of  the  created  universe  can  easily  be  taken  for  granted,  but 
can  not  easily  be  proved.    Indeed  the  very  persons  who  most  peremptorily 


B6.  THE   DIVINE  NATUHH. 

assume  this  necessity,  Invariably  fall  away  from  it  in  tlielr  tlieories  concei'n* 
ing  the  uncreated  unik  The  orthodox  ai*e  sticklers  for  the  unity  of  the  final 
cause,  and  yet  they  have  their  three  divine  persons.  And  even  Swedenborg, 
though  he  has  but  one  divine  person,  divides  that  person  into  three  eternal 
parte — '  esse,  existere,  and  proceeding.'  Or,  if  it  should  be  insisted  on  his 
behalf,  that  these  parts  are  not  distinct  but  altogether  one,  we  may  allege 
further  that  he  divides  the  divine  nature  into  two  constituents.  Love  and 
"Wisdom,  and  says  expressly  that  these  are  '  two  distmct  things.'  (See  Love 
and  Wisdom,  §34.)  Now  it  matters  not  whether  the  unity  of  the  uncreated 
is  broken  exteriorly  by  division  into  persons,  or  interiorly  by  division  into 
distinct  spiritual  components.  If  it  is  broken  in  either  way,  the  assumption 
that  the  uncreated  must  be  an  absolute  unit  is  violated.  We  find  in  ourselves 
no  more  intuitive  repugnance  against  the  idea  that  creation  is  attributable  to 
a  dualty  of  persons,  than  we  have  against  the  idea  that  it  is  attributable  to  a 
dualty  of  causes  in  one  person,  and  we  have  no  rational  repugnance  against 
either.  The  only  legitimate  way  to  seek  the  truth  in  relation  to  the  ante- 
cedents of  creation,  is  to  descend  from  intuitive  repugnances  (which  are 
often  nothing  but  traditional  impressions)  into  the  region  of  evidence. 

The  moment  we  begin  to  interrogate  nature  in  relation  to  her  parentage, 
we  find  a  repugnance  arising  against  the  idea  of  absolute  unity  in  the  un- 
created. The  universe  proclaims  that  it  is  the  offspring  of  love.  But  is 
love  possible  in  absolute  solitude  ?  What  is  love  ?  Swedenborg  shall  an- 
swer.    He  says  in  his  Divine  Love  and  Wisdom,  §§  47,  48 — 

"  It  is  an  essential  of  love,  not  to  love  itself,  but  to  love  others,  and  to  be 
joined  to  them  by  love;  it  is  also  an  essential  of  love  to  be  beloved  by  others,  for 
thereby  conjunction  is  effected.  The  essence  of  all  love  consists  in  conjunction ; 
yea,  the  life  of  it,  which  is  called  enjoyment,  pleasantness,  delight,  sweetness, 
beatitude,  happiness,  and  felicity.  Love  consists  in  our  wilhng  what  is  our  own 
to  be  another's,  and  feeling  his  delight  as  delight  in  ourselves ;  this  is   to  Jove. 

Who  that  is  capable  of  looking  into  the  essence  of  love,   cannot   see 

that  this  is  the  case  ?  For  what  is  it  for  a  man  to  love  himself  alone,  and  not 
any  one  out  of  himself,  by  whom  he  may  be  beloved  again  ?  This  is  rather  dis- 
solution than  conjunction :  the  conjunction  of  love  arises  from  reciprocation, 
and  reciprocation  does  not  exist  in  self  alone :  if  it  is  thought  to  exist  it  is  from 
an  imaginary  reciprocation  in  others.  Hence  it  is  evident  that  the  divine  love 
cannot  but  be  and  exist  in  other  beings  or  existences,  whom  it  loves,  and  by 
whom  it  is  beloved  ;  for  when  such  a  quality  exists  in  all  love,  it  must  needs  ex- 
ist in  the  greatest  degree,  that  is,  infinitely,  in  love  itself." 

Now  according  to  this  definition  of  love,  if  God  is  but  one  person,  he  could 
not  love  till  he  had  created  objects  of  love  ;  and  hence  it  follows  that  unless 
some  part  of  creation  is  co-eternal  with  himself,  (i.  e.  uncreated,  which  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms,)  there  was  an  eternity  before  creation  in  which  it  was 
impossible  for  him  to  be  otherwise  than  selfish !  Have  we  no  intuitive  re- 
pugnance against  this  idea  ?  Does  not  all  nature  cry  out  against  it  ?  Is  God 
absolutely  dependent  on  creation  for  the  possibility  of  being  happy  ? 

Again,  if  we  reason  from  the  seen  to  the  unseen,  assuming  that  the  essen- 
tial nature  of  the  effect  is  in  the  cause,  we  have  proof  as  broad  as  the  uni- 
vx^rse,  that  the  Godhead  is  a  dualty ;  lor  every  link  of  the  chain  of  productive 


THE   DIVINE  NATURE-.  8T 

life,  in  its  whole  visible  extent  from  the  lowest  region  of  the  vegetable  king- 
dom, to  the  highest  of  the  animal,  is  a  dualty.  The  distinction  between  male 
and  female  is  as  miiversal  as  vitality,  and  all  visible  evidence  goes  to  prove 
that  it  is  the  indispensable  condition  of  reproduction,  i.  e.  of  vital  creation^. 
If  we  find  two  elements  in  all  the  streams  of  life,  why  should  we  not  infer 
that  the  same  two  elements  are  in  the  Fountain  ? 

Swedenborg,  in  all  his  writings,  labors  assiduously  to  make  known  that 
the  human  form  is  the  archetype  of  all  existences.  He  insists  that  every 
specific  society  in  heaven  is  in  the  human  form — that  the  universal  heaven  is 
in  the  human  form — and  finally  that  God  himself  is  in  the  human  form.  On 
this  foundation,  certainly,  the  only  consistent  doctrine  of  the  Godhead  that 
can  be  raised  is  that  of  its  dualty.  For  what,  is  the  human  form  ?  Is  it  the 
form  of  man  ?  or  of  woman  ?  Nay ;  it  is  certainly  the  form  of  all  that 
enters  into  the  constitution  of  human  beings,  i.  e.  it  is  the  form  of  both  man 
and  woman.  To  call  a  male  form  alone,  the  human  form,  is  as  absurd  as  it 
would  be  to  call  the  right  half  of  the  human  body  the  human  form,  or  to  call 
*  the  odd  half  of  a  pair  of  shears'  the  shear-form.  In  our  reading  of  Swe- 
denborg's  long  discourses  on  the  universality  of  the  human  form  in  heaven, 
we  have  a  continual  desire  to  ask  him  which  of  the  two  human  forms,  or 
rather  Avhich  half  of  the  human  form  he  refers  to  ?  He  says  nothing,  so  far 
as  we  know,  directly  on  this  point ;  but  he  leaves  us  to  conclude  from  the 
fact  that  he  evidently  refers  to  but  one  of  the  two  parts  of  the  dual  human 
form,  and  from  the  constant  use  of  the  word  manm  designating  that  part, 
that  he  refers  to  the  male  half.  This  being  true,  it  follows  that  the  female 
half  of  human  nature  is  not,  in  his  view,  of  any  account,  and  has  no  place  in 
the  higher  regions  of  heavenly  and  divine  existence.  The  heaven  and  the 
God  of  his  theory,  instead  of  being  in  the  human  form,  is,  if  we  may  use  the 
expression,  in  the  haelielor  form — a  somi-human  anomaly. 

For  our  part,  instead  of  having  any  repugnance  against  the  idea  that  God 
is  a  bi-personal  being,  we  find  all  our  natural  prepossessions  in  favor  of  it. — 
We  are  quite  willing  that  the  indications  of  the  created  universe  should  be 
true — that  woman  as  well  as  man  should  have  her  archetype  in  the  primary 
sphere  of  existence — that  the  receptive  as  w^ell  as  the  active  principle,  sub- 
ordination as  well  as  power,  should  have  its  representative  in  the  Godhead. 
And  we  believe  that  an  unsophisticated  child  would  much  prefer  the  family- 
idea  of  a  dual  '  head  over  all' — a  Father  and  Mother  of  the  universe, — to 
the  conception  of  a  solitary  God. 

If  now  we  interrogate  scripture,  we  find  the  testimony  of  nature  exactly 
and  fully  confirmed.  '  God  said,  let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our 
likeness.  *  *  *  So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image.'  Gen.  1:  26,  27. 
This  is  a  favorite  text  with  Swedenborg,  and  he  builds  large  theories  on  a 
part  of  the  idea  which  it  presents.  But  let  us  have  the  whole  idea.  If  this 
passage  proves  any  thing,  it  proves,  even  in  express  terais  as  well  as  by  im- 
plication, the  dualty  of  the  Godhead.  If  man  is  the  image  of  God,  it  is 
fairly  to  be  inferred  that  God  has  both  parts  of  human  nature,  i.  e.,  is  bi- 
personal  ;  and  this  inference  is  strengthened  by  the  use  of  the  plural  pronoun 
in  the  clause — '  Let  U8  make  man,'  &c.    But  we  are  not  left  to  inference. 


88  THE  DIVINE  NATURE. 

The  sequel  of  the  passage  quoted  is  this :  *  In  the  image  of  God  created  he 
him,  male  arid  female  created  he  them,''  Here  is  an  actual  specification  of 
the  first  great  feature  m  the  human  constitution  which  makes  it  an  image  of 
God  ;  and  that  feature  is  its  bi-personahty. 

In  the  New  Testament  we  have  an  account  of  the  manifestation  of  God. 
A  person  appeared  in  human  form,  professing  to  be,  not  the  entire  Godhead, 
but  the  Son  or  Word  of  God,  co-eternal  with  the  Father,  but  subordinate  to 
him.  In  our  controversy  with  Swedenborg  we  have  no  occasion  to  prove 
that  this  person  was  divine.  On  that  point  he  accepts  the  testimony  of  the 
Bible  as  unreservedly  as  can  be  desired  by  orthodoxy  itself.  Nay,  he  goes 
far  beyond  all  orthodoxy,  and  insists  that  Christ  is  not  only  a  divine  person, 
but  the  only  divine  person — the  Father  himself  incarnate.  He  constantly 
and  vehemently  maintains  that  the  Lord  (by  which  term  he  always  means 
Jesus  Christ)  is  Jehovah,  the  only  God  of  heaven  and  earth.  He  is  a  Uni- 
tarian ;  but  he  reaches  Unitarianism  by  a  road  exactly  opposite  to  that  which 
is  usually  pursued.  Like  ordinary  Unitarians,  he  first  plants  himself  on  that 
part  of  the  testimony  of  scripture  which  asserts  the  unity  of  God.  But  when 
he  comes  to  dispose  of  the  problem  of  Christ's  nature,  he  turns  his  back  on 
them.  While  they  assume  the  separate  personality  of  Christ  and  save  the 
doctrine  of  the  unity  by  denying  his  divinity,  Swedenborg  assumes  the  di- 
vinity of  Christ,  and  saves  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  by  denying  his  separate 
personality.  We  think  Swedenborg  has  the  more  formidable  task  of  the 
two.  It  seems  easier  to  get  rid  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  than  of  liis  distinct 
personality.     But  in  our  view  the  true  theory  saves  both. 

We  first  plant  ourselves  on  that  part  of  scripture  which  testifies  that  God 
made  man  in  his  own  image  male  and  female,  (from  which  we  mfer  his  bi- 
personality,)  and  on  the  abounding  evidence  of  the  divinity  and  distinct 
personality  of  Christ ;  and  then  we  interpret  the  assertions  of  scripture  con- 
cerning the  unity  of  God  by  the  rule  which  Christ  himself  has  supplied. — 
The  text  which  Swedenborg  most  frequently  quotes  in  proof  of  the  absolute 
identity  of  Christ  with  the  Father,  is  John  10:  30 — 'I  and  my  Father  are 
one,''  And  it  may  fairly  be  assumed  that  this  text  involves  all  that  is  meant 
by  the  unity  of  God  as  it  is  elsewhere  asserted  in  the  Bible.  Now  if  it  can 
be  shown  that  the  unity  here  intended  is  consistent  with  a  plurality  of  persons 
in  the  Godhead,  the  seeming  inconsistency  between  the  unity,  and  the  dualty 
which  we  maintain,  will  be  removed,  and  the  labors  of  the  common  Unitarians 
to  disprove  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  of  Swedenborg  to  disprove  his  per- 
sonality, will  be  superseded.  We  conceive  that  the  following  sayings  of 
Christ  entirely  define  the  sense  in  which  he  asserted  the  unity  of  himself 
with  the  Father : — '  Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name  those  whom 
thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may  he  one^  as  we  are,  *  *  *  Neither  pray  I 
for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  befieve  on  me  through  their 
word,  that  they  all  may  he  one  ;  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee^ 
that  they  also  may  he  one  in  us.''  John  IT:  11,  21.  The  unity  here  prayed 
for  is  expressly  declared  to  be  the  same  as  that  existing  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son  ;  and  it  is  a  unity  of  many  persons,  and  is  certainly  consistent 
with  their  distinct  personality.    It  follows  therefore  that  the  unity  of  God, 


THE  DIVINE  NATURE.  89 

in  the  sense  in  which  Christ  and  the  Bible  assert  it,  is  consistent  with  his 
bi-personahtj. 

We  know  no  reason  why  absolute  unity  of  life  or  spirit  is  not  as  consistent 
with  dualty  of  persons  as  it  is  mth.  dualty  of  powers  (love  and  wisdom,  for 
instance)  in  one  person.  Universal  common  sense  recognizes  the  substantial 
unity  of  two  persons  standing  in  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife.  As  '  God 
created  onan  male  and  female,  and  called  their  name  Adam,'  (see  Gen.  5: 
1,  2,)  making  '  of  twain  one  flesh,'  (see  Gen.  2:  24  and  Mark  10:  8,)  so  the 
common  law  of  most  countries  treats  man  and  wife  as  one  being,  and  in 
common  speech  they  are  called  '  the  united  head  of  the  family.'  On  a  simi- 
lar principle  we  believe  that  the  Bible  asserts  the  unity  of  God  in  perfect 
consistency  with  the  divinity  and  distinct  personality  of  Christ. 

As  to  its  results,  Swedenborg's  doctrine  is  much  the  same  as  ordinary 
Unitarianism.  In  effect,  it  denies  not  only  the  divinity  but  the  existence  of 
the  Christ  described  in  the  evangelists ;  for  that  Christ  constantly  and  in 
various  ways  represented  himself  as  a  person  distinct  from  the  Father.  The 
very  names  Father  and  Son  necessarily  designate  two  persons  ;  and  to  say 
that  the  two  things  meant  by  those  names  constitute  but  one  individual,  i.  e. 
that  the  Father  is  the  only  actual  person,  is  to  annihilate  the  Son.  Christ 
said  that  he  w^as  sent  by  the  Father,  that  the  Father  was  greater  than  he^ 
that  the  Father  knew  some  things  which  were  not  known  to  the  Son,  &c. 
In  all  this,  according  to  Swedenborg,  there  was  but  one  person  concerned  ; 
which  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  the  apparent  person  who  said  these  things 
was  a  mere  phantom  or  nonentity.  Christ  constantly  prayed  to  the  Father 
just  as  though  there  was  a  distinction  of  personality  between  them ;  but  Swe- 
denborg's theory  turns  this  into  a  downright  farce,  such  as  it  would  be  for  a 
man  to  present  a  formal  petition  to  himself,  or  for  a  man's  body  to  pray  to 
his  soul.  But  these  incongruities  are  easily  smoothed  over  by  resolving  as 
much  of  the  evangelists'  account  of  Christ  as  is  necessary  into  apparent  truth, 
and  falling  back  upon  the  '  internal  sense.'  In  this  respect  Swedenborg  has 
an  advantage  over  common  Unitarians. 

The  doctrine  which  only  denies  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  certainly  less  irra- 
tional than  that  which  denies  his  existence.  Both  equally  deprive  the  Chris- 
tian scheme  of  its  divine  Mediator,  and  both,  in  our  view,  come  within  the 
range  of  the  apostle's  test — '  Every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  not  of  God.' 

11  ^  « 


^13.    CREATION. 

It  is  commonly  believed  that  God  created  the  universe  '■out  of  nothing.^ 
Many,  we  doubt  not,  seriously  imagine  that  this  is  explicitly  affirmed  in  the 
Bible.  Yet  it  certainly  is  not :  neither  is  there  any  thing  in  the  Bible,  so 
far  as  we  know,  that  suggests  or  favors  such  an  idea.  In  Hebrews  11:  3, 
"we  are  told  that  '  things  which  are  seen  were  not  made  of  things  which  do 
appear.'  But  this  is  not  an  assertion  that  '  things  which  are  seen'  were 
made  out  of  nothing.  They  were  not  made  of  '  things  that  do  appear,'  but 
they  may  have  been  made  of  things  that  do  not  appear  ;  and  this  is  even 
intimated  by  the  form  of  the  expression.  Knapp  says  that  the  negative  in 
this  sentence  is  placed  by  some  after  the  preposition  of  instead  of  before  it, 
so  that  the  reading  would  be—'  things  that  are  seen  were  made  of  things  that 
do  not  appear ;'  i.  e.,  in  fewer  words,  visible  things  were  made  of  things 
invisible.  This  is  a  more  natural  reading  than  the  other ;  and  corresponds 
better  to  the  definition  of  faith  in  the  1st  verse,  which  the  apostle  obviously 
had  in  mind.  'Faith,'  he  there  says,  '  is  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen.'* 
Here  he  illustrates  that  definition,  by  the  fact  that  God  made  the  visible 
universe  out  of  tilings  that  were  not  seen.  He  does  not  say  in  the  one  case 
that  faith  is  the  evidence  of  things  that  do  not  exist ;  nor  does  he  mean  in 
the  other  that  God  made  the  worlds  out  of  tilings  that  did  not  exist,  but 
simply  that  he  made  them  of  things  that  were  invisible.  In  this  view  of  the 
apostle's  language,  it  is  obvious  that,  instead  of  favoring  the  dogma  that 
God  made  the  universe  out  of  nothing,  it  expressly  affirms  the  contrary. — 
And  whether  we  take  this  view  or  the  other,  no  assertion  or  implication  of 
that  dogma  can  be  fairly  found  in  the  passage. 

It  may  be  thought  by  some  that  the  word  create  in  the  1st  verse  of  the 
1st  chapter  of  Genesis,  of  itself  implies  creation  out  of  nothing.  But  this 
can  easily  be  shown  to  be  a  false  impression.  The  primary  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  word  translated  create,  is  to  carve;  thence  it  came  to  mean  to  form, 
and  finally  to  make  or  create.  The  first  two  of  these  meanings  certainly 
imply  pre-existing  material — something  to  be  carved  or  formed  ;  and  the 
presumption  is  that  the  last  meaning  is  in  this  respect  like  the  others  from 
■which  it  is  directly  derived,  unless  there  is  decisive  evidence  to  the  contrary. 
We  speak  of  men's  making  or  creating  things,  not  meaning  that  they  had 
no  material  with  which  to  work,  but  that  they  produced  things  which  in  their 
distinctive  form,  had  no  previous  existence.  Now  there  is  no  evidence  in 
Gen.  1:  1  that  this  is  not  the  meaning,  when  it  is  said  that  '  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth.'  Neither  the  word  itself  translated  create,  nor 
any  thing  else  in  the  verse,  determines  the  question  whether  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth  out  of  nothing,  or  out  of  pre-existing  material. 
But  in  several  subsequent  verses  of  the  chapter,  the  same  word  is  used  in  a 
way  which  shows  decisively  that  its  proper  meaning  is  to  make  sometliing 
new  of  pre-existing  material.  In  the  21st  verse  it  is  said  that  God  ^created 
great  whales.'    Eow  did  he  create  them  ?  By  speaking  them  out  of  nothing  ? 


CREATION.  '  91 

Ifo.  Re  caused  the  waters  to  bring  them  forth^  as  appears  by  what  goes 
both  before  and  after  the  clause  in  question.  Again  in  the  27th  verse  it  is 
said  that  God  'created  man  in  his  own  image.'  How  did  he  create  man  ? 
In  the  7th  verse  of  the  next  chapter  we  are  told  that  he  formed  man  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground^  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life.  Here 
we  find  the  material  out  of  which  God  created  man — dust  and  spirit; — both 
pre-existing  substances.  This  demonstrates  that  the  word  creMed  in  the 
first  chapter  is  simply  equivalent  to  made  in  the  usual  sense  ;  and  does  not 
exclude,  but  actually  imphes  the  idea  of  pre-existing  material.  The  reader 
will  find  further  evidence  that  create  and  make  are  equivalent  words,  by 
comparing  the  21st  verse  with  the  25th,  and  the  26th  with  the  27th,  either 
in  the  Eughsh  or  in  the  Hebrew. 

'  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  ea^L'  How  did  he 
create  them  ?  The  writer  immediately  proceeds  to  inforai  us.  In  the  sec- 
ond verse  we  have  an  account  of  the  pre-existing  material  in  its  chaotic  state, 
^  without  form,  and  void' — covered  with  darkness.  The  first  act  of  creation 
was  the  production  of  fight,  recorded  in  the  3d,  4th  and  5th  verses.  This 
was  the  work  of  the  first  day.  The  second  act  was  the  separation  of  the  wa- 
ters beneath  from  those  above,  by  ^firmament,  which  firmament  God  called 
heaveyi.  See  verses  6,  7,  8.  The  third  act  was  the  gathering  of  the  waters 
beneath  into  one  place,  and  the  bringing  forth  of  the  dry  land,  which  dry 
land  God  called  earth.  Ver.  9,  10.  It  appears  plainly  by  this  account  that 
the  heaven  and  the  earth  were  not  made  in  the  order  indicated  by  the  first 
verse  as  commonly  understood,  i.  e.  before  every  thing  else,  and  even  before 
the  first  day.  Heaven  was  made  on  the  second  day,  after  the  production  of 
light ;  and  earth  was  made  on  the  third  day,  after  the  creation  of  heaven. 
The  first  verse  then  is  simply  a  general  statement  of  the  whole  transaction, 
the  details  of  which  are  given  in  the  discourse  that  follows.  It  may  properly 
be  regarded  as  an  index  or  epitome  of  the  whole  chapter  at  the  head  of  which 
it  stands.  We  are  first  informed  in  general  terms  that  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  ;  then  follows  a  detail  of  the  process  by  which  he  crea- 
ted them.  After  this  detail,  the  first  general  statement  is  substantially 
repeated  and  applied  as  we  have  suggested.  The  second  chapter  begins  as 
follows — '  Thus  the  heaven  and  the  earth  were  finished.'  The  obvious  im- 
port of  this  is :  '  We  said  at  the  outset,  that  God  created  the  heaven  and 
the  earth ;  we  have  now  related  how  he  did  it,  recording  separately  the 
events  of  each  day.' 

The  common  idea  of  Gen.  1: 1,  represents  God  as  making  the  heaven  and 
the  earth  twice  over ;  first  at  the  beginnmg  before  the  first  day,  and  then 
again  on  the  second  and  third  days,  as  recorded  in  the  subsequent  verses. 
The  most  plausible  form  of  it  involves  the  idea  that  God  made  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  by  a  twofold  process,  i.  e.,  by  first  creating  the  raw  material, 
and  afterward  manufacturing  it, — which  is  well  nigh  an  absurdity ;  for  if 
God  could  create  the  chaotic  material  of  heaven  and  earth  out  of  nothing, 
we  may  fairly  ask  why  he  could  not  and  did  not  create  the  finished  fabric  of 
heaven  and  earth  directly  out  of  nothing,  without  going  through  a  double 
process  ?     Is  it  not  unworthy  of  the  omnipotence  commonly  ascribed  to  God, 


92  CREATION. 

to  suppose  that  his  first  creative  fiat  only  produced  the  mass  of  confnsiont 
described  in  the  second  verse  ? 

Our  view  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  makes  the  first  verse  the  caption 
of  the  account  that  follows  ;  the  second  verse  a  description  of  the  state  of 
pre-existing  uncreated  matter  ;  and  the  third  verse  the  beginning  of  the  de- 
tail of  creation.  This  view  represents  God  as  creating  heaven  and  earth, 
not  out  of  nothing,  but  out  of  substantial  though  chaotic  material,  which 
existed  from  eternity.  We  venture  to  affirm  that  there  is  not  in  all  the  Bible 
a  hint  adverse  to  this  theory,  however  heretical  it  may  seem  to  those  who 
have  received  their  views  of  creation  from  orthodox  tradition. 

Having  established  ourselves  on  an  exegetical  foundation,  we  may  now  be 
permitted  to  say  a  word  about  the  pJiilosophical  merits  of  the  dogma  that 
God  created  the  universe  out  of  nothing  ;  and  we  confess  at  once  that  we 
cannot  conceive  of  a  more  palpable  absurdity.  If  the  Bible  did  not  deter- 
mine the  manner  of  creation,  (as  we  have  seen  it  does,)  we  should  still  rely 
confidently  on  the  decision  of  common  sense  that  to  create  something  out  of 
nothing,  is  as  impossible  as  to  cause  a  thing  to  be  and  not  to  be  at  the  same 
time.  It  is  no  disparagement  of  the  power  of  God  to  say  that  he  cannot 
make  something  out  of  nothing ;  for  power,  be  it  ever  so  gTeat,  must  have 
an  object  to  act  upon ;  and  vfhere  there  is  no  such  object,  it  is  no  discredit 
to  power  that  it  cannot  act.  If  A  can  lift  a  larger  weight  than  B,  we  give 
A  the  credit  of  being  stronger  than  B.  But  A  has  no  more  power  to  lift  a 
weight  that  does  not  exist,  than  B.  The  excess  of  A's  power  over  B's  gives 
him  no  advantage  whatever,  in  a  case  where  there  is  no  object  to  act  upon ; 
and  if  his  strength  were  multiplied  a  millionfold,  he  would  still  be  no  nearer 
the  abiUty  to  lift  non-existence,  than  he  was  at  first.  He  would  have  stu- 
pendous  strength ;  and  the  fact  that  he  could  not  lay  out  that  strength  on 
nonentity  would  be  no  disparagement  of  it.  So  let  God's  power  be  magnified 
in  our  conceptions  till  it  is  worthy  to  be  called  omnipotence  ;  still  the  exer- 
cise of  it  requires  an  object ;  and  it  is  not  irreverent  to  say  that  he  is  no 
nearer  the  possibility  of  creating  something  out  of  nothing,  or  performing  any 
other  absurdity,  than  the  feeblest  infant. 

It  is  a  sycophantic  spirit  that  seeks  to  magnify  the  power  of  God,  by  rep- 
resenting him  as  able  to  perform  impossibilities.  Courtiers  who  have  an  in- 
terest in  swelling  the  pride  of  their  sovereign,  are  always  ready  to  believe 
and  prove  his  ability  to  be  extravagant.  The  story  of  Canute,  who  was 
assured  by  his  flatterers  that  he  could  stop  the  waves  of  the  sea  by  a  word, 
is  famiUar  to  all.  There  is  a  vast  amount  of  this  kind  of  flattery  in  the 
popular  modes  of  reasoning  about  the  omnipotence  of  God.  But  we  may 
be  assured  that  God  is  neither  duped  nor  pleased  by  such  sycophancy.  We 
shall  honor  him  more  by  appreciating  his  power  as  applied  to  substantial 
material — by  comparing  his  subjective  strength  with  the  objective  difficulties 
which  it  has  overcome, — than  by  '  great  swelling  words'  about  creation  out 
of  nothing,  and  notions  which  bring  all  his  works  to  one  common  level  of 
perfect  facility,  making  it  as  easy  for  him  to  create  the  solar  system,  as  for 
a  man  to  snap  his  finger. 

K  any  one,  in  view  of  our  theory  of  creation^  is  disposed  to  ask — 'Where 


CREATION.  93 

did  the  uncreated  material  of  which  God  made  heaven  and  earth,  come 
from  V — we  answer  by  asking  another  question ; — Where  did  God  come 
from  ? 

That  we  may  still  further  simplify  our  views  of  God's  workings,  we  ad- 
vance now  to  tJEie  position,  that  creation  was  a  work  oe  faith.  This, 
in  our  view,  is  the  specific  doctrine  of  the  text  on  which  we  have  already 
remarked,  viz.  Heb.  11:  3. 

"  Through  faith  we  understand  that  the  worlds  were  framed  hy  the  word  of 
God ;  so  that  things  which  are  seen  were  not  made  of  things  which  do  appear," 
Heb.  11:  3. 

This  verse  is  commonly  supposed  to  teach  that  our  understanding  of  the 
fact  that  God  created  visible  things  out  of  invisible  chaos  or  nonentity,  is  an 
act  of  faith.  The  clause  '  through  faith,''  is  regarded  as  an  adjunct  of  the 
verb  '  understand.^  We  reject  this  interpretation,  and  propose  another. 
The  clause  '  through  faith,''  in  our  view,  is  an  adjunct  of  the  verb  'framed;^ 
and  the  verse  teaches  that  God  created  visible  things  out  of  invisible  chaos, 
h^  faith.  In  other  words,  the  apostle  here  celebrates  not  our  faith  in  un- 
derstanding the  fact  of  creation,  but  Grod's  faith  in  producing  that  stupen- 
dous fact.     Our  reasons  for  this  interpretation  are  the  following  : — 

1.  Though  the  mere  location  of  the  words  seems  to  connect  '  through 
faith'  with  '  imderstand,'  more  naturally  than  with  'framed,'  yet  the  con- 
text of  the  passage — the  whole  scope  of  the  chapter  in  which  it  occurs — 
plainly  demands  the  other  construction.  In  the  first  two  verses  of  the  chap- 
ter, and  immediately  proceeding  our  text,  we  have,  first,  a  general  definition 
of  faith ;  and,  secondly,  an  anouncement  of  the  way  in  which  the  apostle 
proposes  to  illustrate  it,  in  the  following  words — 'By  it  the  elders  obtained  a 
good  re])ort.'  Let  the  reader  glance  through  the  chapter,  and  he  will  see 
that  this  announcement  is  the  caption  or  summary  index  of  all  that  follows, 
leaving  out  of  the  account,  of  course,  for  the  present  the  verse  under  exam- 
ination. The  object  of  the  writer  is  to  show  by  a  long  train  of  examples, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  the  end  of  the  times  of  the  Old  Testament, 
that '  the  elders  obtained  a  good  report  through  faith.'  The  reader  will  also 
notice  that  the  faith-exploits  of  the  ancients  are  recounted  in  their  chronolog- 
ical order,  beginning  from  Abel,  proceeding  along  the  line  of  the  patriarchs^ 
judges,  and  kings,  and  ending  with  the  prophets.  Now  how  incongruous  it 
is  to  suppose  that  immediately  under  such  a  caption,  and  at  the  head  of  suck 
a  series  of  ancient  deeds,  the  apostle  should  instance  the  faith  of  himself  and 
his  cotemporaries  as  manifested  in  the  mere  passive  understanding  of  the  fact 
of  creation  !  What  has  this  to  do  with  the  subject  in  hand,  viz.  the  faith  of 
the  elders?  What  propriety  is  there  in  placing  a  present  and  general 
instance  of  faith  at  the  head  of  a  chronological  list  of  past  examples  ?  It 
is  as  if  a  man  should  undertake  to  recount  in  order  the  reigns  and  exploits 
of  the  Roman  Emperors,  and  should  begin  with  the  history  of  the  United 
States  !  But  let  us  try  the  other  construction.  'By  faith  the  ancients 
[which  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  presbuteroi  in  this  case]  obtained  a 
good  report.''  Under  this  caption,  how  natural  and  proper  it  is  that  the 
writer  should  go  back  to  the  very  beginning,  and  commence  his  series  of 


9|»r,  CREATION. 

mighty  deeds  perfomicd  by  faith,  with  the  primeval  act  of  the  ^Ancient  of 
days.'  First  of  all,  God  himself  set  the  example  of  apprehending  things 
imseen,  and  realizing  things  hoped  for,  when  he  undertook  to  call  visible  and 
magnificent  worlds  out  of  black  chaos.  Then  follows  in  natural  order  the 
fragrant  sacrifice  of  Abel,  the  walk  of  Enoch  with  God,  the  ark-building  of 
Noah,  the  exile  and  pilgrimage  of  Abraham,  &c,  &c.  At  the  head  of  the 
series,  instead  of  a  modern  instance  we  have  the  most  ancient  of  all — - 
instead  of  an  insignificant  instance,  the  most  splendid  of  all.  The  Almighty 
Creator  himself  leads  the  train  of  believing  heroes.  We  submit  it  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  reader,  whether  the  scope  of  the  discourse  does  not  require  our 
interpretation  with  a  force  sufiicient  to  countervail  the  objection  (which  we 
shall  soon  show  is  by  no  means  insuperable)  arising  from  the  mere  arrangement 
of  the  words. 

2.  By  comparing  our  text  with  the  first  verse  of  the  chapter,  where 
the  apostle  defines  faith,  the  reader  will  perceive  that  the  language  and 
idea  of  the  definition  is  carried  forward  into  the  illustration.  In  the  defi- 
nition '  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen'  is  spoken  of;  in  the  illustration  it  is 
said,  '  the  things  that  are  seen  were  not  made  of  things  wMch  do  appear.' 
It  is  evident  that  the  latter  expression  was  intended  to  correspond  to  the  form- 
er, and  that  the  faith  which  the  apostle  aims  to  illustrate  in  what  he  says 
about  the  work  of  creation,  is  that  which  was  concerned  in  the  making  of 
things  that  are  seen,  without  visible  material ;  not  that  which  is  concerned  in 
tinder  standing  that  they  are  made.  In  other  words,  th-e  latter  clause  of  the 
text,  commencing  at  the  words  'so  that^  determines  w^hat  kind  of  faith  was 
in  the  apostle's  mind  ;  and  that  clause  is  an  adjunct,  not  of  'we  understand^ 
but  of  ''the  worlds  were  framed,'' — showing  that  God's  faith  in  the  act  of  crea- 
tion, and  not  our  faith  in  understanding  the  act,  is  the  point  of  illustration. 
The  demand  for  faith  resulting  from  the  circumstance  that  no  visible  material 
existed  wherewith  to  make  the  w^orlds,  is  not  addressed  to  us.  The  worlds 
«?'emade.  The  invisible  has  become  visible  ;  and  with  the  record  of  Moses 
before  us,  it  requires  no  great  stretch  of  heroism  to  believe  that  the  word  of 
the  Almighty  brought  the  change  to  pass.  But  there  was  a  necessity  for 
faith  on  the  part  of  God,  when  '  darkness  Avas  upon  the  face  of  the  deep,' 
and  he  proposed  to  call  forth  from  that  deep,  a  radiant,  living  universe. 

3.  It  may  fairly  be  doubted  whether  the  mere  understanding  that  God 
called  the  world  out  of  chaos,  is  an  act  of  faith,  either  according  to  the  apos- 
tle's previous  definition,  or  according  to  his  subsequent  illustrations.  Where- 
in does  it  difibr  from  common  belief  of  credible  historical  records  in  regard  to 
past  and  distant  transactions  ?  Are  there  not  multitudes  who  credit  Moses' 
account  of  creation,  without  pretending  to  the  possession  of  religious  faith  ? 
If  we  admit  that  such  an  understanding  implies  an  apprehension  of  the  '  evi- 
dence of  things  not  seen,''  which  is  one  element  of  Paul's  definition,  it  cer- 
tainly does  not  imply  a  realization  of  'things  hoped for\  which  is  the  other  and 
most  important  element.  Devils  apprehend  '  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen,' 
I)ut  not  the  '  substance  of  things  hoped  for.'  Not  an  instance  can  be  found 
among  all  the  subsequent  examples,  in  which  faith  is  exhibited  as  a  mere  be- 
lief of  historical  truth.    The  faith  of  every  worthy  from  Abel  to  the  last  of 


CREATION.  95 

the  prophets,  is  represented  as  embodied  in  noble  deeds,  heroic  reachings 
after  '  things  hoped  for.'  We  are  not  told  that  Gideon  and  Barak  and  Sam- 
son and  Jephthah  and  Samuel  and  David  merely  'understood''  certain  things  * 
by  faith,  but  that  they  'subdued  kingdoms,  wrought  righteousness,  obtained 
promises,  stopped  the  mouths  of  lions,  quenched  the  violence  of  fire,  es- 
caped the  edge  of  the  sword,  out  of  weakness  were  made  strong,  waxed 
valiant  in  fight,  put  to  flight  the  armies  of  the  aliens.'  How  puerile  is  the 
idea  of  placing  by  the  side,  or  indeed,  in  front  of  these  exploits,  a  mere 
understanding  of  cosmogony,  as  a  kindred  and  worthy  act  of  faith !  But 
how  glorious  is  the  conception,  and  the  analogy,  if  we  understand  Paul  as 
placing  first  in  the  fist  of  faith-works,  the  mighty  fiat  by  which  God  subdued 
chaos  !  That  act  embodied  an  apprehension,  not  only  of  '  things  not  seen,' 
but  of  '  things  hoped  for.' 

4.  We  admit  that  the  natural  position  of  the  words,  according  to  our  con- 
struction of  the  passage  under  consideration,  would  be  this — '  We  understand 
that  the  worlds  were  framed  by  faith,'  &c.  Nevertheless  two  reasons  may 
be  suggested  for  the  different  arrangement  which  we  find  the  apostle  actually 
adopted.  (1.)  As  faith  was  the  grand  topic  of  the  discourse,  it  was  desi- 
rable that  it  should  be  the  leading  word  in  the  sentence.  On  this  account 
we  find  each  of  the  subsequent  illustrations  commencing  with  the  expression 
*  hy  faith, ^  and  in  some  of  them  it  is  separated  even  farther  from  its  verb  than 
in  the  case  under  examination.  See  the  7th  verse  for  instance.*  (2.)  The 
verb  'framed''  has  another  adjunct,  viz.,  the  clause,  '  hy  the  word  of  God,^ 
It  is  obvious  that  there  would  be  an  awkw^ardness  in  saying — '  The  worlds 
were  framed  by  faith  by  the  word  of  God.'  Two  adjuncts,  commencing  with 
the  same  preposition,  ought  to  be  separated  for  the  sake  of  euphony.  Ac- 
cordingly the  apostle  places  one  before,  and  the  other  after  the  verb.  We 
account  for  the  introduction  of  the  clause  '  tve  understand^  in  this  way  :— 
The  position  that  God  made  the  worlds  by  faith  is  a  bold  one.  It  is  not  ex- 
pressly assumed  in  Moses'  account  of  creation ;  and  mere  worldly  believers 
of  that  account,  would  not  so  understand  the  matter.  They  would  take  for 
granted  that  God  made  the  worlds  by  some  inexphcable  exertion  of  omnipo- 
tence, wholly  foreign  from  human  ideas  and  experience.  Having  no  con- 
ception of  the  spiritual  energy  of  which  believers  are  conscious,  they  would 
not  imagine  that  God  in  the  act  of  creation  only  set  the  first  great  example 
of  faith ;  and  that  men  are  capable  of  sympathizing  with,  and,  in  their 
measure,  imitating  that  act.  '  But,'  says  the  apostle,  '  we,  who  know  by 
experience  what  faith  is,  and  how  it  works,  understand  that  the  worlds  were 
framed  by  it.  Let  worldly  philosophers  mystify  themselves  as  they  may, 
this  is  our  view  of  the  matter.' 

5.  Faith,  defined  as  '  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for,  and  the  evidence 
of  things  not  seen,'  does  not  necessarily  imply  reliance  on  the  strength  of  a 
superior,  though  this  is  the  form  which  it  assumes  of  course  in  the  case  of 

*  The  reader  should  know  that  in  the  Greek,  the  word  rendered  in  the  common  version 
^  through  faith,'  in  the  3d  verse,  is  exactly  the  same  as  that  rendered  ^by  faith'  in  the  be- 
ginning of  many  subsequent  verses.  The  translators  injured  the  sound,  if  not  the 
aense,  in  using  through  in  one  case,  and  by  in  the  others. 


96  CREATION. 

created  beings.  God's  reliance  on  himself  gives  him  '  the  substance  of  things 
.  hoped  for,  the  e\ddence  of  things  not  seen,'  and  is  as  truly  faith  as  is  the  re- 
*'  liance  of  his  creatures  on  him.  But  even  if  it  is  insisted  that  faith  must  have 
for  one  of  its  elements,  dependence  on  another,  it  can  be  shown  that  Crea- 
tion was  a  work  of  faith  in  this  sense.  God,  the  Father,  did  not  create  the 
imiverse  directly.  By  the  Son  he  '  made  the  worlds.'  Heb.  1:  2.  By 
the  Son  '  were  all  things  created  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth, 
visible  and  invisible.'  Col.  1:  16.  See  also  John  1:  3.  The  Son  of  God 
certainly  created  the  worlds  by  faith  in  the  Father.  This  is  implied  in  the 
expression —  'By  whom  [i.  e.  the  Son]  he  [i.  e.  the  Father]  made  the  worlds.' 
The  Son  was  the  executive,  the  Father  furnished  power,  and  the  faith  of  the 
Son  was  the  link  that  connected  them.  As  Christ,  in  the  days  of  his  flesh, 
standing  before  the  grave  of  Lazarus,  '  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  said.  Father, 
I  thank  thee  that  thou  hast  heard  me,  *  *  *  and  when  he  had  thus  spoken, 
cried  with  a  loud  voice,  Lazarus,  come  forth !  and  he  that  was  dead  came 
forth' — so  it  is  no  presumption  to  suppose  that  the  Son,  when  he  confronted 
chaos,  and  bid  worlds  of  life  and  beauty  come  forth, '  lifted  up  his  eyes'  with 
faith  and  thanksgiving  to  the  Father. 

The  practical  bearnigs  of  the  view  we  have  presented,  are  many.  We 
Trill  advert  to  only  three  of  the  most  obvious  and  important. 

1.  Our  theory  corrects  a  pernicious  misapprehension  of  the  nature  of  faith, 
which  is  countenanced  by  the  common  view  of  the  text  we  have  considered. 
"We  find  that  Paul  is  not  guilty  (as  many  suppose)  of  degrading  the  grand 
medium  of  salvation  into  an  intellectual  assent  to  historical  truth  ;  but  man- 
fully adheres  throughout  all  the  examples  he  gives,  and  most  emphatically 
of  all  in  the  first,  to  the  definition  which  makes  faith  '  the  substance  of 
thi7igs  hoped  for, ^  as  well  as  '  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen' — a  practical 
and  heroic,  as  well  as  an  intellectual  principle. 

2.  As  far  as  mystification  and  darkness  are  evil,  just  so  far  it  is  good  to 
know  how  God  made  the  worlds.  Our  theory  allows  us  to  regard  the  resur- 
rection of  Lazarus  as  a  miniature  of  the  birth  of  the  universe.  By  this  help 
we  can  look  steadily  at  that  stupendous  scene,  and  in  view  of  the  mighty 
power,  and  the  glorious  faith  which  flashed  life,  light  and  order  through  the 
depths  of  chaos,  we  can  worthily  glorify  both  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

3.  It  is  good  to  know  that  there  is  a  community  of  feehng  between  us  and 
God  in  so  vital  a  matter  as  that  of  faith — that  God  is  our  example  and  leader 
in  '  the  race  set  before  us,'  our  fellow-soldier  and  captain  in  the  '  fight  of 
faith.'  In  all  our  struggles  with  death  and  darkness,  it  will  cheer  us  to  think 
that  the  Almighty  himself  leads  the  van  of  the  army  of  behevers — that  our 
warfare  is  but  a  continuation  of  the  victorious  agonism  of  creation. 


§14.    THE  ORIGIN  OF  EVIL. 

The  great  question  which  urges  itself  upon  the  attention  not  only  of 
theologians,  but  of  every  reflecting  man  in  this  world  of  sin  and  sufiering, 
is — '  Whence  came  evil  V 

Before  answering  this  question,  suppose  we  present  another,  viz.,  '  What 
is  the  origin  of  good  f  The  plain  answer  to  this,  in  which  all  will  doubtless 
agree,  is,  that  all  good  comes  from  God ;  and  as  God's  existence  had  no  be- 
ginning, good  has  existed  from  eternity.  But  what  if  we  say  that  a  like^ 
answer  may  be  given  to  the  question  concerning  the  origin  of  evil  ? — viz., 
that  all  evil  comes  from  the  Devil ;  that  the  Devil's  existence  had  no  begin- 
nuig ;  and  therefore  evil  has  existed  from  eternity. 

The  objection  to  this  view  which  most  readily  presents  itself,  is,  that  evil, 
if  it  existed  from  eternity,  was  unavoidable,  and  we  cannot  consistently 
Harm  the  Devil  and  those  who  are  evil,  for  their  wickedness.  But  we  as 
readily  reply  that  the  same  objection  may  be  made  to  the  praise  which  we 
bestow  on  God  and  those  who  are  good,  since  all  admit  that  goodness  existed 
from  eternity.  God's  goodness  is  certainly  the  necessary  product  of  his 
essential,  eternal  nature.  But  is  he  any  the  less  praiseworthy  ?  If  we  an- 
alyze our  elementary  ideas  of  moral  truth,  we  shall  find  that  we  praise  God,, 
not  because  his  goodness  had  a  beginning,  but  for  its  intrinsic  beauty  and 
usefulness.  On  the  same  principle,  if  the  Devil  existed  and  was  a  sinner 
from  eternity,  we  must  blame  his  wickedness  for  its  intrinsic  deformity  and 
mischievousness. 

It  may  certainly  be  presumed,  with  strong  probability,  at  the  outset  of  all 
inquiry  on  this  subject,  that  sin  and  death  did  not  originate  in  God,  or  ia 
any  of  his  works.  If  we  beheve  with  good  evidence,  that  he  is  benevolent 
and  holy,  w^e  may  safely  be  more  sohcitous  to  clear  his  moral  character  of 
all  responsibiHty,  direct  or  indirect,  for  the  existence  of  evil,  than  to  extol 
his  physical  greatness,  by  representing  him  as  the  author  of  all  beings  and 
acts,  bad  as  well  as  good.  All  the  proof  we  have  that  God  is  sincerely  at 
war  with  evil,  invites  and  requires  the  presumption  that  he  has  not,  either 
by  creation,  by  decree,  or  by  permission,  given  birth  to  it  himself.  If  evil 
did  actually  originate  in  the  creation  of  God,  by  his  decree  or  permission, 
then  the  whole  warfare  between  good  and  evil  which  the  Bible  exhibits,  is 
apparently,  so  far  as  he  is  concerned,  only  a  great  farce. 

The  way  then  is  fairly  open,  and  a  strong  presumption  plainly  points  us 
to  the  simple  intelhgible  theory  that  the  ultimate  cause  of  all  evil  is  an  urir 
created  evil  being  ;  as  the  ultimate  cause  of  all  good  is  an  uncreated  good 
being.     This  is  the  theory  which  we  propose  to  establish. 

We  hope  none  will  be  deterred  from  an  examination  of  what  we  have  to 
say  in  support  of  this  theory,  by  the  clamor  which  professed  theologians  are 
always  ready  to  raise  against  it,  as  being  identical  with  the  '  exploded  her- 
esies' of  the  Magians,  the  Manicheans,  and  the  Gnostics.  We  might  say 
m  answer  to  this  clamor,  that  many  theories  which  were  *  exploded'  by  the 
12 


r 


9B  OHIGIK  OP  EVIL. 

wise  men  of  the  dart  ages,  have,  in  later  times,  been  found  true.  But,  be 
this  as  it  may,  it  is  not  true  that  our  doctrine  is  identical  with  the  heresies^ 
alleged,  if  the  common  histories  and  reports  of  them  are  to  be  credited.-— 
i^or  example,  the  Magians,  Manicheans  and  Gnostics,  are  said  to  ha?e  taught 
that  the  evil  bemg  created  this  world  ;  and^  since  creation  is  the  distinguish- 
ing prerogative  of  divinity,  they  are  justly  charged  with  teaching  the  exist' 
ence  of  two  Gods.  We  are  not  exposed  to  this  charge,  because  we  have  no* 
fellowship  with  their  theory  of  creation.  We  believe  that  one  God  ^  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth.'  Again,  the  Manicheans  and  Gnostics  (with  all 
the  other  ancient  sects  of  Christians  who  taught  the  doctrine  of  two  eternal 
principles)  held  that  the  evil  being  was  the  author  of  the  Jewish  dispensation 
and  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  of  course  they  rejected.  We  believe  that 
the  same  God  instituted  both  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations,  and  in- 
spired the  writers  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Instead  of  setting 
up  a  theory  as  they  did,  against  the  Bible,  we  have  derived  our  theory 
wholly  from  the  Bible,  and  shall  bring  our  proof  of  it  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  well  as  from  the  New.  It  must  be  tried  therefore  on  its  own  merits, 
by  the  Bible,  apart  from  all  prejudice  against  former  heresies  of  similar 
aspect. 

The  great  majority  of  religionists — all,  we  think,  who  are  not  turned  far 
aside  from  scriptural  simplicity  by  their  theological  systems,  and  especially 
all  who  have  had  any  considerable  spiritual  experience, — will  admit,  without 
requiring  us  to  prove  it,  that  the  Bible  recognizes  throughout,  the  existence 
of  a  personal,  spiritual,  superhuman  being  called  the  Devil,  or  Satan,  who 
is  tlie  central  presiding  spirit  of  the  whole  kingdom  of  evil.  We  are  aware^ 
however,  that  a  portion  of  the  Universalists  deny  this,  affiiming  that  the 
words  Devil  and  Satan  are  used  in  scripture  merely  as  common  nouns y 
equivalent  to  stacker ^r  and  at^z^ersary,  and  are  applied,  not  to  a  single 
spiritual  superhuman  being,  but  to  men  or  bodies  of  men.  To  this  class  we 
oifer  the  following  brief  argument. 

Christ  and  the  evangelists  used  the  words  Devil,  Satan,  Beehehuh,  kc.,. 
without  defining  them.  Of  course,  if  they  were  honest,  they  used  them  in 
their  ordinary/,  ivell  known  sense.  What  they  meant  by  them,  therefore,  is 
to  be  determined  by  showing,  not  what  they  might  have  meant  according  to 
the  original  significancy  of  the  words,  or  what  they  ought  to  have  meant  ac- 
cording to  our  views  of  pneumatology,  but  what  they  onust  have  meant 
according  to  the  common  usage  of  speech  in  the  age  and  nation  in  wliich 
they  lived.  The  question  is  one,  not  of  etymology  or  philosophy,  but  of 
history.  "What  was  the  popular  theory  of  the  Jews  concerning  the  Devil, 
when  Mattheiv  wrote  his  account  of  Chris  fs  temptation  ?  This  is  the  ques- 
tion on  which  the  whole  controversy  hinges ;  for  Matthew  in  that  account 
introduces  the  Devil  for  the  first  time  in  the  New  Testament,  without  a  word 
of  explanation,  as  though  he  was  a  well  known  personage.  Of  course  he 
adopts  a  pre-existing  theory,  and  uses  the  word  Devil  in  its  predetermined 
sense.  To  deny  this,  is  to  charge  him  with  using  a  current  word  in  an  ten- 
visual  sense  ivithout  explanation,  which  is  as  bad  as  forgery.  Assuming 
th«n  that  the  word  Devil  in  Matt.  4:  1,  is  used  in  accordance  with  the  urns 


ORIGIN    OF    EVIL. 

ioquendi  of  Matthew's  time,  we  affirm  that  the  hook  of  Job  was  the  source^; 
or  at  least  the  channel,  of  th'e  theory  concerning  the  nature  and  power  of  the; 
Devil,  which  then  prevailed.  That  theory  represented  Satan  as  a  personal^ 
being,  having  place  among  angels  in  the  spiritual  world ;  and  ascribed  to  liiin 
supernatural  poAver  (in  subordination  to  God)  over  the  minds  and  bodies  of 
men,  and  over  the  elements  of  nature.  Every  one  of  these  characteristics 
is  plainly  visible  in  the  account  of  Satan  in  the  1st  and  2d  chapters  of  Job, 
Moreover,  it  can  be  shown  from  extrarbiblical  authorities  that  the  Jews  in 
Matthew's  time  actually  held  this  theory  of  the  nature  and  power  of  the 
Bevil,  whether  they  got  it  from  the  book  of  Job,  or  not.  Matthew  used  the 
word  Devil  in  accordance  with  this  theory,  and  of  course  meant  by  it  a  per- 
sonal, spiritual,  superhuman  being.  So  also  Christ  and  the  other  wTiters  of 
the  New  Testament,  used  the  words  Devil,  Satan,  Beelzebub,  &c.  in  their 
popular  meaning.  They  did  not  set  up  a  new  theory,  and  introduce  new 
terms.  No  matter,  therefore,  what  was  the  original  significancy  or  applica- 
tion of  those  words ;  they  meant  in  Christ's  mouth  just  what  they  meant  in 
the  minds  of  those  to  whom  he  spoke ;  and  we  think  even  Universalists  will 
not  venture  to  deny  that  in  the  minds  of  the  Jews  they  were  appellations  of 
&  superhuman,  wicked  spirit. 

Assuming  then  the  existence  of  a  central,  pre-eminent^  wicked  being, 
called  the  Devil,  our  inquiry  concerning  the  origin  of  evil  resolves  itself  into 
the  question  whether  that  being  was  created  by  God,  or  existed  from  eter- 
nity. We  argue  the  eternal  existence  of  the  Devil,  from  the  following  con- 
giderations. 

I.  The  Bible  plainly  teaches  that  there  is  one  uncreated  person  besides  the 
Father,  viz.,  Jesus  Christ.  There  is,  therefore,  no  apiori  absurdity  in 
the  idea  that  the  great  antagonist  of  Jesus  Christ  is  uncreated.  Orthodoxy 
itself  teaches  that  there  are  three  uncreated  persons,  or  *  eternal  principles.' 
Why  may  there  not  be  one  evil,  as  well  as  two  good  beings,  co-existent  with 
the  first  person  of  the  Godhead  ?  We  see  no  more  difficulty  in  the  supposi» 
tion  of  the  eternal  existence  of  the  Devil,  than  in  the  received  doctrine  of 
the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit. 

II.  We  find  no  substantial  foundation  in  the  Bible,  for  the  Miltonian  hy- 
pothesis that  the  Devil  is  a  fallen  angeL  The  idea  that  the  person  described 
under  the  name  of  'Luelfer^  in  the  14th  chapter  of  Isaiah,  is  Satan,  camiot 
be  harbored  a  moment  by  any  one  who  will  candidly-  read  that  chapter 
through.  The  prophet,  foretelling  the  deliverance  and  prosperity  of  Israel, 
says : — ■'  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  shall  give  thee  rest 
from  thy  sorrow,  and  from  thy  hard  bondage,  that  thou  shalt  take  up  this  pro- 
verb against  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  say — How  hath  the  oppressor  ceased  \ 
the  golden  city  ceased  t  *  *  *  Q^i^e  whole  earth  is  at  rest,  and  is  quiet : 
they  break  forth  into  singing.  *  *  *  Hell  from  beneath  is  moved  for  thee, 
to  meet  thee  at  thy  coming:  it  stirreth  up  the  dead  for  thee,  even  all  the 
chief  ones  of  the  earth  ;  it  hath  raised  up  from  their  thrones  all  the  kings 
of  the  nations.  All  they  shall  speak  and  say  unto  thee,  Art  thou  also  be- 
come weak  as  tve  f  art  thou  become  like  unto  us  ?  Thy  pomp  is  brought 
down  to  the  grave,  and  the  noise  of  thy  viols :   the  worm  is  spread  under 


100  ORIGIN    OF   EVIL. 

thee,  and  the  worms  cover  thee.  How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven,  0 
Lucifer,  son  of  the  morning !  How  art  thou  cut  down  to  the  ground,  which 
didst  weaken  the  nations  /  *  *  *  They  that  see  thee  shall  narrowly  look  upon 
thee,  saying,  Is  this  the  man  that  made  the  earth  to  tremble,  that  did  shake 
kingdoms  ?'  &c.  It  is  quite  evident  that  this  language  refers  not  to  Satan, 
or  to  an  angel  of  light,  but  to  a  man  who  had  exercised  an  oppressive  do- 
minion over  the  nations.  Yet  this  is  one  of  the  main  props  of  the  common 
tradition. 

The  only  other  passages  which  are  usually  cited  to  prove  the  apostasy  of 
Satan,  are  2  Peter  2:  4,  and  Jude  6,  where  the  fall  of  certain  angels  is 
mentioned.  But  these  passages  will  be  found  on  examination  to  afford  no 
support  to  that  theory.  Peter  and  Jude  mention  the  same  events,  i.  e.  the 
sin  of  the  angels,  and  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  ;  and  they 
speak  of  these  things  as  if  they  were  recorded  in  the  scriptures,  and 
well  known  to  those  to  whom  they  wrote.  Peter  says  the  angels  sinned,  and 
were  cast  do^vn  to  hell,  and  reserved  in  chains  of  darkness  unto  judgment. 
Jude  tells  us  in  what  their  sin  consisted ;  inasmuch  as  he  likens  it  to  the  sin 
of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  He  says,  '  The  angels  which  kept  not  their  first 
estate,  (or  principality,)  but  left  their  own  habitation^  he  hath  reserved  in 
everlastmg  chains,  under  darkness,  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day. 
Even  as  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  the  cities  about  them,  in  like  manner 
giving  themselves  over  to  fornication^  and  going  after  strange  flesh,  [or 
other  flesh,  sarJcos  eteras,']  are  set  forth  for  an  example,  suffering  the  ven- 
geance of  eternal  fire.'  The  account,  and  the  only  one  which  we  have  in 
the  Old  Testament,  to  which  we  can  suppose  Jude  to  have  referred,  of  angels 
leaving  their  own  habitation  and  going  after  other  flesh,  is  found  in  the  sixth 
chapter  of  Genesis,  where  it  is  said,  that  '  when  men  began  to  multiply  on 
the  face  of  the  earth,  and  daughters  were  born  unto  them,  the  sons  of  God 
saw  the  daughters  of  men  that  they  were  fair ;  and  they  took  them  wives  of 
all  that  they  chose.'  Ver.  1, 2.  See  also  verse  4,  &c.,  where  it  is  said  that 
'  the  sons  of  God  came  in  unto  the  daughters  of  men,  and  they  bare  [giant] 
children  unto  them,'  &c.  This  view  of  the  meaning  of  2  Pet.  2:  4,  Jude  6 
and  Gen.  6:  1,  involves  no  intrinsic  absurdity.  It  only  makes  a  breach  in 
the  theories  of  those  who  assume  without  proof  that  angels  have  not  a  corpo- 
real and  sexual  nature.  All  the  ancient  Christian  Fathers,  and  most  of  the 
Jewish  Rabbins  at  this  day  refer  the  term  '  sons  of  Grod'  in  Gen.  6:  1,  to 
angels.  Gesenius,  the  greatest  Hebrew  philologist  in  Germany  or  in  the 
world,  gives  it  the  same  meaning,  and  classes  it  with  the  same  term  in  Job 
1:  6,  &c.,  without  a  suggestion  to  the  contrary.  It  appears  then,  that  Peter 
and  Jude  refer  to  a  fall  of  angels  which  took  place  just  before  the  flood,  long 
after  the  original  birth  of  evil  in  this  world.  They  say  not  a  word  that 
authorizes  the  assumption  that  Satan  was  one  of  those  angels :  and  the  state- 
ment of  John  (1  Epis.  3:  8)  that  'the  devil  sinneth/rom  the  heginning^ 
understood  in  the  lowest  meaning  that  can  be  put  upon  it,  determines  that 
he  was  a  sinner  before  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  of  course  proves  that  he  could 
not  have  been  one  of  those  angels. 

in.  As  there  is  no  evidence  that  Satan  was  ever  an  angel,  we  have  no 


ORiaiN    OB"    EVIL.  lOl 

Specific  account  in  the  Bible  of  his  creation,  his  original  holiness,  and  hi« 
subsequent  fall ;  and  the  adherents  of  these  dogmas  (on  whom  rests  the 
burden  of  proof  in  the  case,  because  as  we  have  shown,  the  a  priori  presump- 
tion is  against  them)  are  left  without  any  scriptural  support,  except  what  can 
be  gathered  from  those  general  statements  which  represent  God  as  the  crea- 
tor of  all  things,  and  the  agent  of  all  evil.  We  may  refer  to  Col.  1:  16,  as 
a  fair  specimen  of  this  class  of  statements.  '  By  him  were  all  things  created 
that  are  in  heaven^  and  that  are  in  earthy  visible  and  invisible,  whether  they 
be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principahties,  or  powers.'  Now  as  God  and  his 
Son  existed  before  heaven  and  earth,  and  are  not  therefore  a  part  of  them, 
— so  we  believe  that  the  Devil,  being  uncreated,  is  not  a  part  of  heaven  and 
earth,  and  is  not  included  among  the  thrones  and  dominions  here  mentioned. 
This  view  of  the  passage  accords  with  the  statement  a  few  verses  afterward, 
that  God  has  '  reconciled  all  things  to  himself,  whether  they  be  things  in 
earth,  or  things  in  heaven.'  The  atonement  manifestly  covers  the  w^hole  field 
of  creation.  The  same  '-  all  things'  that  w^ere  created,  are  also  reconciled^ 
We  must  therefore  admit  either  that  the  Devil  was  not  created,  and  is  not 
referred  to  in  Col.  1:  16,  or  that  he  has  an  interest  in  the  atonement.  Our 
Calvinistic  friends  will  not  consent  to  the  latter  alternative  ;  and  our  Univer- 
salist  friends  must  not  assume  it,  till  they  can  show  that  the  Devil  is  a  part 
of  heaven  and  earth,  which  they  cannot  show  from  this  passage  without  beg- 
^ng  the  question  of  his  creation. 

Such  passages  as  Isa.  45:  7 — '  I  make  peace  and  create  evil,' — we  refer 
to  the  providential  government  which  God  exercises  over  all  the  concerns  of 
heaven  and  earth,  whereby  he  determines  the  form  and  circumstances  of  all 
events,  without  implicating  himself  at  all  in  the  origin  of  sin.  He  directs 
the  stream  of  evil,  though  he  did  not  create  the  fountain. 

IV.  All  the  positive  evidence  which  the  Bible  furnishes  on  the  subject  of 
the  origin  of  the  Devil,  goes  to  prove  that  he  is  uncreated. 

1.  We  learn  from  Gen.  2:  9,  and  3:  5,  22,  that  'God  knew  good  and  evil' 
before  the  fall  of  Adam.  Evil  therefore  existed  at  that  time  ;  but  not  in  the 
things  which  God  had  made,  for  he  pronounced  them  all  '  very  good.' — • 
Where  then  did  it  exist,  if  not  in  an  uncreated  Devil  ?  We  have  no  allusion 
in  all  the  Bible  to  the  fall  of  any  angels  in  the  period  between  the  creation 
and  the  fall  of  Adam.  A  fact  so  momentous  must  not  be  assumed  without 
proof.  That  the  Devil  was  the  evil  power  which  God  knew  before  the  fall 
of  Adam,  and  that  he  was  the  seducer  of  Eve,  and  the  father  of  Cain,  is 
evident  from  Rev.  12:  9,  Rom.  16:  20,  IJohn  3:  12,  &c.  If  he  existed 
at  the  time  of  the  fall,  and  was  a  devil  then,  as  these  texts  and  the  whole 
tenor  of  scripture  indicate,  we  must  either  conclude  that  God  created  him  a 
devil,  which  is  contrary  to  Gen.  1:  31 ;  or  that  he  was  created  good  and 
had  fallen,  of  which  there  is  no  account ;    or  lastly,  that  he  was  uncreated. 

2.  In  the  parable  of  the  tares  and  wheat,  (Matt.  13:  24 — 43,)  the  per- 
son who  sowed  the  tares  (i.  e.  the  representative  of  the  Devil,  as  appears  by 
the  subsequent  explanation)  is  not  described  as  a  rebellious  son  or  servant 
of  the  owner  of  the  field,  but  as  '  an  enemy,'  altogether  alien  from  ^  his 
household,  which  is  incongruous  with  truth,  if  the  Devil  is  a  pai't  of  creation. 


102  ORIGIN    OF    EVIL. 

Indeed  if  the  Devil  is  a  created  being,  who  has  fallen  from  original  holiness, 
he  should  have  been  considered  as  a  part  of  the  moral  field  ;  and  the  question 
'  Whence  came  the  tares  V  should  have  been  asked  first  of  all  with  reference 
to  his  apostasy.  To  answer  the  question,  '  Whence  came  the  sins  of  man- 
kind V  by  affirming  that  the  Devil  is  the  author  of  them,  is  only  removing 
the  question  one  link  farther  back  in  the  chain  of  causation,  without  clearing 
it  up,  unless  we  can  stop  at  this  second  hnk,  and  believe  that  the  Devil  is  in 
fact  the  uncreated  author  of  evil,  as  God  is  of  good.  This  is  the  idea  which 
Christ  evidently  intended  to  convey.  He  places  the  Devil,  not  in  the  crea- 
ted field,  as  one  of  the  seeds  which  God  sowed,  but  side  by  side  with  the 
uncreated  Son  of  man,  as  a  primary  sower  of  seed.  If  the  parable  teaches 
any  thing,  it  teaches  that  the  Devil  existed  and  was  an  enemy,  before  the 
worid  was  made  ;  and  that  his  agency  for  evil  is  co-ordinate  with  that  of 
Christ  for  good. 

3.  Christ  says  '  the  Devil  was  a  murderer /r(??7^  tJie  he  ginning.'^  John  8: 
44.  From  the  beginning  of  what  ?  If  we  say  from  the  beginnihg  of  his 
existence — Avhich  is  the  most  natural  construction, — we  must  either  admit 
that  God  created  him  a  murderer,  which  is  contrary  to  Gen.  1:  31 ;  or  that 
he  was  uncreated.  If  we  say,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world ;  then  again, 
we  must  either  show  that  he  was  created  before  the  beginning  of  the  world, 
and  had  fallen — Avhich  we  cannot  do, — or  we  must  say  that  God  created  him 
at  the  beginning  of  the  world  a  murderer, — or  that  he  was  uncreated.  If 
we  deny,  as  some  do,  that  the  text  means  any  thing  .  more  than  that  the 
Devil  was  the  first  sinner,  we  must  place  his  apostasy  before  Adam's ;  and 
Adam's  fail  is  the  first  we  have  any  account  of  after  creation :  so  that  we 
must  either  build  up  a  baseless  supposition  of  the  Devil's  apostasy,  in  the 
period  between  creation  and  the  fall  of  Adam,  or  we  must  admit  that  he  was 
uncreated.  If  it  is  said  that  the  clause  following  the  text,  viz.,  '  he  abode 
not  in  the  truth,'  is  evidence  of  his  apostasy,  we  reply,  that  the  Greek  word 
translated  abode,  is  the  same  that  occurs  in  John  1 :  26 — '  there  standeth 
one  among  you,'  &c.  Its  first  and  principal  meaning  is  simply  to  stand; 
and  the  translators  midoubtedly  used  their  doctrinal,  more  than  their  philo- 
logical judgment,  in  rendering  it  abode.  But  admitting  that  it  means  abode, 
it  still  appears  from  what  follows  the  clause  in  question,  that  if  the  Devil  was 
ever  in  the  truth,  the  truth  never  was  in  him.  '  He  abode  not  in  the  truth, 
because  there  is  no  truth  in  him.'*  We  may  take  this  as  a  passage  parallel 
to  1  John  2:  16 — 'They  went  out  from  us,  but  they  were  not  of  us;  for  if 
they  had  been  of  us,  they  would  no  doubt  have  continued  with  ws.'  The 
Devil  forsook  the  external  fellowship  of  the  truth,  (wliich  we  may  admit  he 
once  enjoyed,  as  he  came  before  the  Lord  with  the  sons  of  God,  Job  1:  6,) 
ihecause  he  never  had  internal  fellowship  with  it.  If  we  have  regard,  in  de- 
termining the  meaning  of  the  phrase  '  from  the  beginning,'  to  the  usub 
loquendi  of  the  evangelist  in  whose  Avritings  it  occurs,  we  must  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  he  means  to  designate  by  it,  eternal  pre-existence.  He  con- 
stantly describes  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  thus  :  '  That  which  was  from  the 
beginning.'  1  John  1: 1.  'I  write  mito  you,  fathers,  because  ye  have  known 
Mm  that  is  from  the  beginnmg.'  2:  13, 14.    In  these  cases,  it  is  generally 


ORIGIN    OF   EVIL.  103 

admitted  that  the  phrase  refers  to  Christ's  existence  before  creation.  But 
"why  should  we  change  its  meaning,  when  the  same  evangehst  on  the  next 
page  of  the  same  discourse,  says  '  the  Devil  sinneth  from  the  beginning'? 

V.  Our  position  that  the  Devil  is  an  uncreated  being,  is  confirmed  by  its 
harmony  with  several  remarkable  phenomena  which  we  find  connected  with 
his  character  and  history  in  the  Bible. 

1.  Many  passages  of  scripture  place  Satan  on  one  hand,  and  God  or  his 
Son  on  the  other,  in  an  antithesis  which  apparently  imphes  that  they  are  co- 
ordinate antagonists.  For  example, — Christ  commissioned  Paul  '  to  open 
the  blind  eyes,  and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and /row  the  power 
of  Satan  unto  God.^  Acts  26:  18.  James  says,  'Resist  the  Devil,  and  he 
will  flee  from  you  ;  draw  nigh  unto  Crod,  and  he  will  draiv  nigh  unto  you^ 
Jas.  4:  7,  8.  In  the  parable  of  the  tares  and  wheat,  as  we  have  seen, 
Christ  is  represented  on  one  hand,  as  sowing  the  good  seed — '  the  children 
of  the  kingdom ;'  and  the  Devil  on  the  other,  as  sowing  the  evil  seed — Hhe 
children  of  the  wicked  one.'  Christ  is  the  hfe  of  the  world :  '  the  Devil  hath 
the  power  of  death.'  Christ  is  the  light  of  men :  the  Devil  is  '  the  ruler  of 
the  darkness  of  this  world,  and  blinds  the  minds  of  them  that  believe  not.' 
Christ  is  'faithful  and  true' — is  that  Word  which  is  truth :  the  Devil  '  is  a 
liar  and  the  father  of  it,'  and  '  there  is  no  truth  in  him.'  Christ  so  loved 
mankind  that  he  laid  down  his  life  to  save  them :  the  Devil  '  was  a  mur- 
derer from  the  beginning,'  and  *  as  a  roaring  lion,  seeketh  whom  he  may 
devour.'  The  propriety  and  force  of  all  this  antithesis  is  greatly  diminished 
if  we  suppose  the  Devil  tO  be  merely  a  created  being. 

2.  It  appears  from  several  passages  in  the  Bible,  that  Satan's  ruling  pas- 
sion is  ambition  for  divine^orshi'p.  In  his  final  assault  on  the  integrity  of 
Christ,  he  took  him  up  into  a  high  mountain,  showed  him  all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  w^orld,  and  said,  'AH  these  things  will  I  give  thee  if  thou  wilt  fall 
down  and  worship  me.^  Matt.  4:  9.  The  Man  of  Sin,  who  is  an  mcarnation 
of  Satan,  is  represented  as  'opj^osing  and  exalting  himself  above  all  that  is 
called  G-od,  or  that  is  worshiped;  so  that  he,  as  Grod,  sitteth  in  the  temple 
of  God,  showing  himself  that  he  is  God.^  2  Thess.  2:  4.  Now  it  is  hardly 
supposable,  that  a  being,  necessarily  conscious,  as  all  mere  creatures  must 
be,  of  a  finite,  subordinate  nature,  should  seriously  undertake  rivalship  with 
God.     But  that  an  uncreated  being  should  do  so  is  perfectly  natural. 

3.  The  fact  that  it  was  found  necessary  to  send  an  uncreated  being  into 
the  w^orld  to  overcome  the  Devil,  indicates  that  he  was  uncreated.  If  he 
had  been  a  man,  he  might  have  been  overcome  by  a  man.  If  he  had  been 
only  a  fallen  angel,  w^e  may  presume  that  a  stronger  angel  might  have  been 
found  among  the  hosts  of  heaven.  If  he  had  been  super-angelic,  and  yet  a 
created  being,  it  is  certainly  probable  that  an  antagonist  might  have  been 
found  or  prepared  within  the  bounds  of  creation,  strong  enough  to  encounter 
and  overcome  him.  It  is  only  on  the  supposition  of  his  eternal  nature,  that 
•we  can  see  the  fitness  of  the  mission  against  him  of  the  eternal  Son  of 
God. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  and  in  the  absence  of  all  counteracting 
evidence,  we  rest  in  the  conclusion  that  the  Devil  is  an  uncreated  being  f 


104  ORIGIN    OF   EVIL. 

and  that  evil  existed  from  eternity.     We  will  now  glance  at  some  of  tlio 
consequences  of  this  conclusion. 

1.  It  is  obvious  that  this  theory  modifies  in  some  important  respects,  the 
common  doctrine  concernmg  the  divine  decrees.  All  will  admit  that  God's 
own  existence  and  character  are  not  subjects  of  his  decrees  ;  many  will  make 
the  same  admission  in  regard  to  the  existence  and  character  of  his  uncreated 
Son.  To  these  two  primary,  undecreed  existences  we  add  a  third,  viz.,  that 
of  'the  wicked  one.'  We  regard  the  circle  of  creation  as  the  boundary  of 
God's  decrees  ;  and  the  existence  and  antagonism  of  good  and  evil  not  as 
the  subjects,  but  as  the  antecedents  and  motives  of  the  act  of  creation,  and 
of  all  resulting  decrees.  The  universe  was  manifestly  created  for  the  pur- 
pose of  furnishing  a  theatre  of  action  for  uncreated  good  and  evil — a  battle- 
field whereon  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Devil  might  both  array  themselves, 
and  come  to  decisive  conflict,  that  the  character  and  strength  of  each  might 
be  tested,  and  each  finally  rew^arded  according  to  his  manifested  deserts. — 
From  the  fact  that  God's  foreknowledge  extends  to  all  events,  and  that  he 
might  have  abstained  from  creation,  it  follows  that  his  decrees,  in  a  certain 
sense,  extend  to  every  particular  of  the  great  conflict — evil  as  well  as  good. 
But  we  must  bear  in  mind  when  we  refer  any  evil  event  to  his  purpose  and 
agency,  that  his  part  in  the  transaction  is  simply  to  furnish  the  vehicle  and 
form,  to  determine  the  time  and  circumstances  of  uncreated  evil.  A  general^ 
for  the  purpose  of  ultimately  insnaring  and  destroying  his  adversary,  may 
open  to  him  the  passes  and  barriers  of  his  own  territory,  and  allow  for  a  time 
a  desolating  invasion.  In  such  a  case  it  might  be  said  that  the  general,  by 
his  foresight  and  permission  actually  purposed  all  the  movements  of  his  ad- 
versary ;  but  not  his  existence  and  enmity,  w^|dch  made  those  purposes 
necessary.  So  it  may  properly  be  said  that  Goa  decrees  all  the  movements 
of  the  Devil  in  this  world  ;  but  not  his  existence  and  wickedness,  which  make 
it  necessary  that  those  movements  should  be  allow^ed,  that  he  may  expose 
and  destro}^  himself. 

2.  Our  theory  leads  to  new  views  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  human 
DEPRAVITY.  As  the  source  of  all  evil  in  this  world  is  an  uncreated  evil 
being,  it  is  evident  that  the  ultimate  principle  of  corruption  in  mankind  is 
spiritual.  Men  are  wicked  because  they  are  enveloped  in  the  spirit  of  '  the 
wicked  one,'  and  so  are  '  led  captive  at  his  will.'  Tliis  is  true  of  all,  in 
their  primary,  unregenerate  state. 

But  there  is  a  subdivision  in  the  depravity  of  human  nature.  Adam,  who 
was  originally  the  workmanship  of  God,  and  a  vessel  of  spiiitual  good,  be- 
came by  his  fall  a  subject  of  the  Devil,  and  a  vessel  of  spiritual  evil.  The 
streams  from  the  two  eternal  fountains  flowed  together  in  him.  His  spiritual 
nature  was  primarily  good,  as  proceeding  from  God  ;  but  secondarily  evil, 
as  pervaded  by  the  Devil.  With  this  compound  character,  he  had  the  power- 
of  propagating  his  own  likeness  ;  and  in  giving  direction  to  that  power,  the 
antagonistic  elements  of  uncreated  good  and  evil  were  both  concerned.  In 
fact,  this  was  the  point  of  their  most  radical  conflict.  As  the  offspring  of 
Adam's  body  was  twofold,  distinguished  into  male  and  female,  part  following 
the  nature  of  the  primary,  and  part  the  nature  of  the  secondary  parent  ]  s© 


ORIGIN    OF    EVIL.  105 

the  ofispring  of  his  spiritual  nature  was  twofold,  distinguished  like  that  nar 
ture,  into  good  and  evil,  part  following  the  chai;acter  of  the  primary  and  part 
the  character  of  the  secondary  spiritual  element.  In  other  words,  Adam 
had  two  sorts  of  spiritual  children — one  of  them  like  himself,  primarily  of 
God  and  secondarily  of  the  Devil,  of  whom  Abel  was  a  specimen ;  the  other, 
primarily  of  the  Devil  and  secondarily  of  God,  of  whom  Cain  was  a  speci- 
men. See  IJohn  3:  12.  Thus  mankind  are  divided  spiritually  into  two 
classes  of  different  original  characters,  proceeding  respectively  from  mi- 
created  good  and  evil.  Christ's  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  tares  and 
wheat  plainly  coincides  with  this  theory.  '  He  answered  and  said  unto  them, 
ITe  that  soiveth  the  good  seed  is  the  Son  of  man:  the  field  is  the  world;  the 
good  seed  are  the  children  of  the  kingdom  ;  hut  the  tares  are  the  CHILDREN 
of  the  wicked  one :  the  enemy  that  soioed  them  is  the  DevilJ  Matt.  13: 
37 — 39.  The  reader  will  observe  that  two  classes  of  persons  (not  merely 
of  moral  qualities)  are  here  represented  by  the  good  and  evil  seed.  These 
two  classes  are  evidently  alluded  to  in  Gen.  3:  15,  under  the  names  of  'the 
seed  of  the  tvoman,^  2ind.  '  the  seed  of  the  serpent  ;^  and  their  conflict  and 
final  destinies  are  predicted.  (For  further  evidence  see  Matt.  11:  19,  15: 
13,  23:  33,  John  8:  38— 4T,  10:  26— 2T.)  The  depravity  of  mankind, 
then,  is  of  two  sorts.  The  seed  of  the  woman  are  depraved,  as  Adam  was 
after  the  fall, — not  in  their  original  individual  spirits  which  are  of  God,  but 
by  their  spiritual  combination  with  and  subjection  to  the  Devil.  In  other 
words,  they  are  possessed  of  the  Devil,  and  as  to  their  voluntary  or  objective 
characters  are  totally  depraved.  Yet  they  are  not  subjectively  devils.  The 
divinity  of  their  origin  is  evinced  by  the  fact  that  they  hear  and  receive  the 
word  of  God  when  it  comes  to  them.  '  Wisdom  is  justified  of  her  children.' 
Matt.  15:  13.  '  He  that  is  of  God  heareth  God's  words.'  John  8:  47.  ^My 
sheep  hear  my  voice.'  10:  27.  On  the  other  hand,  the  seed  of  the  serpent 
are  depraved  as  Cain  was, — not  only  by  combination  with  and  subjection  to 
the  Devil,  but  by  original  spiritual  identity  with  him.  They  are  not  only 
possessed  of  the  Devil,  but  are  radically  devils  themselves.  *^And  their 
distinctive  character  and  origin  is  evinced  by  the  fact  that  they  have  no  ear 
for  the  word  of  God.  '  Ye  therefore  hear  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  God.' 
John  8:  47.     '  Ye  beheve  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep.'  10:  26. 

The  most  formidable  objection  to  these  views  may  be  stated  thus  :  If  there 
is  an  original  difference  in  the  spiritual  natures  of  men,  from  which  the  dif- 
ference in  their  voluntary  characters  proceeds,  how  can  they  properly  be 
treated  as  moral  agents,  subjects  of  law,  worthy  of  praise  and  blame  ?  In 
order  to  answer  this  question,  w^e  must  define  moral  agency.  A  free  moral 
agent,  then,  is  a  being  who  has  jpower  to  act,  and  knowledge  of  the  right  and 
wrong  of  actions.  So  Paul  lays  his  foundation : — '  The  wrath  of  God,'  says 
he,  'is  revealed  against  all  unrighteousness  of  men,  .  .  .  because  that  when 
they  knew  God  they  glorified  him  not  as  God,  .  .  .  but  worshiped  the  crea- 
ture,' &c.  Rom.  1:  18 — 25.  Here  is,  first,  the  power  of  worshiping  God; 
(for  the  same  faculties  that  enable  one  to  worship  the  creature,  are  sufiicient 
for  the  worship  of  the  Creator ;)  and,  secondly,  the  requisite  knoivledge  of 
God's  right  to  be  worshiped.  Having  simply  these  two  qualifications,  th© 
13 


106  OBIQIN   OP   EVIL. 

ungodly  are  pronounced  hvitlwut  ^rccwsg'— proper  subjects  of  the  wratli  of 
God.  Observe  that  the  disposition  or  propensity  is  not  taken  into  the  ac- 
count. It  is  not  necessary  that  a  person  should  have  a  good  disposition,  or 
should  be  free  from  an  evil  one,  in  order  to  constitute  him  a  moral  agent, 
responsible  for  his  actions.  It  seems  to  be  thought  by  some,  that  the  pres- 
ence of  a  strong  propensity  either  to  good  or  evil,  must  take  away  free 
agency,  even  where  the  power  of  action  and  the  knowledge  of  right  and 
wi-ong  exist.  But  if  this  were  true,  God  could  not  be  regarded  as  a  free 
agent ;  for  his  propensity  to  righteousness  is  all-controlling  and  unchangeable. 
As  God,  with  such  a  propensity,  is  yet  a  praiseworthy  free  agent,  because 
he  has  the  power  and  knowledge  requisite  to  do  evil  as  well  as  good ;  so  the 
Devil,  with  an  all-controlling  and  unchangeable  propensity  to  unrighteous- 
ness, is  yet  a  free  agent,  worthy  of  condemnation,  because  he  has  the  requi- 
site power  and  knowledge  to  do  good  as  w^ell  as  evil.  The  truth  is,  common 
sense  in  the  matters  of  this  world  never  makes  the  presence  or  absence  of 
any  given  propensity,  or  a  balance  of  propensities,  or  a  state  of  indifference, 
necessary  to  free  agency.  The  drunkard  may  have  an  unconquerable  at- 
tachment to  strong  drink ;  yet  he  is  condemned,  because  he  has  power  ta 
abstain,  and  knowledge  of  his  duty. 

If  then  the  disposition  is  not  to  be  taken  into  the  account  in  our  definition 
of  a  moral  agent,  much  more  is  all  consideration  of  the  source  of  that  dis- 
position to  be  excluded  from  the  account.  If  a  person  has  the  requisite 
power  and  knowledge,  it  is  utterly  irrelevant  to  inquire  either  what  his  dis- 
position is,  or  where  it  came  from.  He  is  a  free  agent,  without  excuse  for 
doing  wrong.  He  may  have  a  propensity  to  evil  stronger  than  death ;  and 
that  propensity  may  be  either  without  beginning,  or  innate,  or  produced  by 
himself;  still,  according  to  the  philosophy  of  Paul,  and  of  common  sense, 
he  is  a  free  moral  agent,  justly  punishable  for  his  unrighteousness. 

Now  to  apply  this  philosophy  to  our  views  of  human  depravity.  When  we 
say  that  a  part  of  mankind  are  the  seed  of  the  Devil,  spiritually  depraved  as 
he  is,  we  affirm  nothing  inconsistent  with  their  free  agency ;  for  spiritual 
depravity  affects  only  the  disposition,  not  the  power  and  knowledge  of  the 
agent*  The  Devil  himself,  depraved  as  he  is,  is  a  moral  agent,  free  to  do 
right  as  well  as  wrong  ;  and  certainly  his  seed  are  not  less  free.  If  men 
have  power  to  do  wrong,  they  have  power  to  do  right ;  for  so  far  as  natural 
power  is  concerned,  it  is  as  easy  to  glorify  God  as  to  glorify  self, — as  easy  to 
feed  one's  neighbor  as  to  kill  him.  And  if  men  know  their  own  rights  and 
wrongs,  they  know  the  rights  and  wrongs  of  every  other  being ;  for  the 
whole  law  of  God  is  summed  up  in  this  : — '  Whatsoever  ye  would  that  others 
do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them.  Havuig  then  the  two  essentials  of  moral 
agency,  their  disposition,  though  it  be  diabolical  and  mnate,  does  in  no  w^ay 
affect  their  freedom  and  responsibihty. 

3.  These  views  reveal  the  grounds  of  election  and  reprobation. — 
*  Whom  he  did  foreknow  he  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the 
image  of  his  Son.'  Rom.  8:  29.  What  did  God  foreknow  about  those  whom 
he  thus  predestinated  ?  Our  previous  doctrine  points  to  the  answer.  He 
foreknew  them  as  tho  seed  of  the  Son  of  man,  *  having  ears  to  hear'  his  wordj 


OEIGIN    OIT   EVIL.  107 

^nd  for  tMs  reason  he  wrote  their  names  in  the  book  of  life,  from  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world.  The  man  that  sowed  good  seed  in  his  field,  when  the 
tares  first  appeared^  said  to  his  servants — 'Let  both  grow  together  until  the 
harvest,  and  in  the  time  of  the  harvest,  I  will  say  to  the  reapers,  G-ather  ye 
together  first  the  tares  and  hind  them  in  bundles  to  burn ;  hut  gather  the 
tvheat  into  my  harn.^  Matt.  13:  30.  Here  is  election  and  reprobation  foun- 
ded on  foreknowledge.  If  the  reader  will  bear  in  mind  that  the  unchange- 
able depravity  of  those  who  are  not  elected  to  salvation  is  to  be  traced  to 
imcreated  evil,  for  which  God  is  in  no  way  responsible,  he  will  find  no  diffi- 
culty in  justifying  their  reprobation.  God  did  indeed  permit  the  Devil  to 
sow  them  as  tares  in  his  creation,  and  he  foreknew  that  they  would  be  sown. 
So  far  therefore  as  permission  and  foreknowledge  justify  the  expression,  it 
may  be  said,  that  he  foreordained  or  decreed  their  existence  and  wickedness^ 
as  well  as  their  destruction.  In  this  permissive  sense  it  is  true  that  he 
^makes  of  the  same  lump,  one  vessel  unto  honor  and  another  unto  dishonor.' 
But  in  this  there  is  nothing  arbitrary  or  unjust,  because  as  we  have  shown, 
his  decrees  of  this  kind  are  predicated  on  the  necessity  created  by  the  exist- 
ence of  uncreated  evil.  Whatever  odium  attaches  to  the  fact  of  the  repro- 
bation of  the  wicked,  must  at  last  be  laid  upon  the  head  of  the  Devil,  whose 
eternal  wickedness  is  the  foundation  of  all  the  evils  which  disfigure  the 
■creation  of  God. 

4.  The  most  mteresting  result  of  the  theory  we  advocate,  is  the  glory 
which  it  casts  upon  the  benevolence  of  God.  Selfishness  may  murmur  and 
brood  over  its  bearings  on  the  character  and  destiny  of  the  creature  ;  but 
loyal,  loving  hearts,  will  turn  gladly  to  the  brighter  side — its  vindication  of 
the  character  of  the  Creator. 

The  foundation  of  Universalism  is  a  presumption  arising  from  the  acknow- 
ledged perfection  of  God's  benevolence.  The  advocates  of  that  belief  argue 
thus  :  'God  is  perfectly  good.  But  a  perfectly  good  being  would  not  create 
a  universe  which  should  involve  in  the  ultimate  working  of  its  elements, 
incurable,  eternal  evil.  It  is  therefore  irrational  to  suppose  that  the  universe 
which  God  has  created  involves  the  endless  misery  of  the  wicked.'  Or  the 
argument  may  be  stated  thus  :  '  God  is  able  to  save  all  mankmd.  Since, 
then,  he  is  perfectly  good,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  he  will  save  all  mankind.' 
We  call  this  presumption  the  foundation  of  Universalism,  because  we  beheve 
that  without  its  support,  all  the  other  arguments  of  that  system  would  be  too 
weak  to  uphold  it  in  the  public  mind.  The  attempt  to  prove,  simply  by  ci- 
tation and  exegesis  of  scrip bure,  that  all  men  will  be  saved,  is  sad  up-hill 
work.  It  requires  no  little  audacity— and  that  not  merely  against  popular 
belief,  but  against  blazing  evidence — to  undertake  to  show  that  ^everlasting 
punishments^  in  the  Bible,  means  limited  punishment,  or  no  punishment  at 
all ;  and  when  UniversaUsts  find  themselves  compelled  by  the  exigency  of 
their  system,  to  march  up  in  the  face  of  the  heaviest  batteries  of  the  Bible, 
and  attempt  to  annihilate  theDevil,  their  exegetical  boldness  becomes  amusing, 
if  not  sublime.  We  cannot  beheve  that  sober  men  would  ever  try  to  extort 
Universahsm  from  the  Bible,  if  they  were  not  braced  up  to  the  work  by  the 
antecedent  presumption  against  endless  suffering,  from  the  benevolence  of 
God. 


108  ORIGIN    OP    EVIL. 

But  this  presumption  is  valid  only  on  the  supposition  (which  indeed  the 
opponents  of  Universalism  generally  allow,  though  we  do  not)  that  evil  orig- 
inated in  God's  creation,  by  his  decree,  or  with  his  consent ;  and  that  it  is 
in  its  nature  finite  and  curable.  Whereas,  the  true  Bible-doctrine  on  the 
subject  of  the  origin  and  nature  of  primary  evil  allows  no  such  supposition. 
Evil  existed  '  from  the  beginning.'  God  was  in  no  way  concerned  in  its 
origin,  either  by  decree,  or  by  permission,  or  by  choosing  as  best  on  the 
whole,  a  system  which  involved  its  birth.  The  fact  that  incuraMe  evil  exists, 
instead  of  being  a  ground  for  impeaching  the  benevolence  of  God,  is  an  ul- 
timate, ante-mundane,  independent  fact,  for  which  God  is  no  more  respon- 
sible than  he  is  for  his  own  existence.  However  dreadful  eternal  sin  and 
suffering  may  be,  there  is  no  more  occasion  to  murmur  against  God  on  ac- 
count  of  it,  than  a  man  would  have  to  mui-mur  against  his  neighbor  on 
account  of  a  flood  or  an  earthquake.  We  believe  that  God's  goodness  is 
perfect,  altogether  as  unlimited  and  impartial  as  Universalists  insist ;  and  we 
agree  with  them  that  it  is  to  be  presumed  such  a  being  would  not  have  crea- 
ted a  system  which  should  involve  the  birth  of  incurable  evil :  yet  we  believe 
that  evil  exists  which  is  incurable  because  it  had  no  begiiming ;  that  it  has 
invaded  God's  creation,  and  will  destroy  forever  a  portion  of  the  human  race ; 
and  there  is  manifestly  no  inconsistency  between  these  two  forms  of  belief. 
The  presumption  then,  in  favor  of  Universahsm  from  the  benevolence  of 
God,  is  destroyed. 

But  we  go  farther,  and  assert  that  the  presumption  from  the  benevolence 
of  God  is  as  truly  adverse  to  the  system  which  Universalists  suppose  to  exist, 
as  to  those  systems  which  they  condemn.  The  same  benevolence  which 
would  forbid  the  introduction  or  allowance  of  eternal  evil,  would  likewise 
forbid  the  introduction  or  allowance  of  any  evil.  But  Universahsts  cannot 
deny  that  tremendous  evil  does  exist,  even  though  it  be  finite.  They  see 
that  there  is  a  'hell  upon  earth,'  though  they  may  deny  that  there. is  one 
any  where  else.  They  clear  God's  character  of  the  great  cloud  of  endless 
misery,  but  they  leave  upon  it  the  little  cloud  of  misery  in  this  world.  We 
turn  their  own  argument  against  them  thus :  '  A  perfectly  good  being  would 
not  create  a  universe,  which  should  involve  in  its  working  the  horrible  evils 
which -we  see  in  this  world.'  This  presumption  is  the  same  in  kind  with  that 
on  which  their  doctrine  rests,  differing  from  it  only  in  the  magnitude  of  the 
evil  to  which  it  relates  ;  and  it  shuts  them  up  to  the  conclusion  that  God  is 
not  perfectly  good,  since  they,  in  common  with  the  orthodox,  hold  that  God 
did  actually  create  the  universe,  including  all  the  elements  which  have  pro- 
duced existing  evil.  We  may  say  then,  '  If  the  God  of  the  orthodox,  in 
allowing  endless  misery,  is,  as  Universalists  insist,  far  from  the  standard  of 
perfect  benevolence, — so  the  God  of  Universalists,  m  allowing  the  miseries 
of  this  world,  is  only  somewhat  nearer  that  standard,  but  not  perfectly  good.' 
The  benevolence  of  God  is  seen  to  be  complete,  only  when  it  is  proved  that 
he  is  not  the  author,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  of  either  infinite  or  finite 
evil ;  and  this  is  proved  only  by  showing  that  evil  existed  from  eternity. 
Believing  this  as  we  do,  though  we  see  enormous  finite  evil,  and  beheve  that 
evil  'vvill  exist  forever,  we  can  truly  gay  that  our  God  is  perfectly  good :  \^ 


ORIGIN    OF    EVIL.  109 


benevolence  is  without  a  cloud.  We  have  no  doubt  that  his  good  will  m 
large  enough  to  save  not  only  all  men,  but  all  devils  and  Satan  himself,  if 
the  nature  of  uncreated  evil  did  not  make  it  impossible. 

Universalists  may  say,  in  reply  to  our  reasoning,  that  the  temporary  evil 
which  exists  is  nothing  but  good  in  disguise— that  men  will  be  the  happier 
on  the  whole  for  having  been  subject  to  sin  and  suffering  in  this  life,  so  that 
the  benevolence  of  God  is  not  darkened  at  all  by  the  theory  that  he  intro- 
duced finite  evil.     We  have  several  objoctions  to  this  position. 

1.  By  the  same  mode  of  reasoning  the  orthodox  prove  that  the  introduction 
of  eternal  evil  is  good  on  the  whole,  and  not  inconsistent  with  the  perfection 
of  God's  benevolence.  They  say  that  the  endless  sin  and  misery  of  a  part 
of  mankind  will  produce  the  greatest  amount  of  happiness  to  the  race  as  a 
whole  ;  the  evil  being  infinite  only  in  regard  to  duration,  but  finite  in  regard 
to  the  number  of  its  victims.  If  Universalists  object  that  it  is  inconsistent 
with  justice  and  impartiality  that  a  part  of  mankind  should  be  sacrificed 
eternally  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  the  orthodox  may  reply,  that  it  is  equal- 
ly inconsistent  with  justice  and  impartiality  that  finite  evil  should  be  un- 
equally distributed,  as  it  manifestly  is  ;  that  some  men  should  suffer  more 
than  others  for  the  good  of  the  whole  ;  and  that  a  part  of  God's  creation,  the 
angels  for  instance,  should  share  in  the  blessings  of  his  administration  with- 
out suffering  at  all.  We  do  not  see  but  that  the  reasoning  is  as  sound  on 
one  side  as  on  the  other. 

2.  We  doubt  whether  it  can  be  shown  that  any  evil,  finite  or  infinite, 
physical  or  moral,  is  good,  or  can  be  turned  to  good,  in  any  other  than  a 
comparative  or  relative  sense.  One  evil,  as  being  the  preventive  of  another 
that  is  greater,  may  be,  on  that  account,  relatively  good.  Inoculation  for 
the  kine-pox  is  good,  because  it  is  a  preventive  of  the  small-pox.  But  if 
there  were  no  small-pox  to  be  guarded  against,  men  would  not  take  the  kine- 
pox  and  call  it  good.  The  chastisements  which  men  suffer  from  the  hand  of 
God  and  are  justly  thankful  for,  are  good  as  being  curatives  or  preventives  of 
greater  moral  miseries,  but  in  any  other  relation  they  are  only  evil.  This 
view  of  the  efficacy  of  evil  justifies  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  in  vol- 
untarily employing  certam  measures  of  it  in  the  discipline  of  his  creatures, 
on  the  supposition  (which  we  hold  as  true)  that  the  miasma  of  sin  and  death 
existed  '  from  the  beginning,'  as  an  ultimate,  uncreated  entity,  requiring 
preventives  and  expellents  ;  but  it  would  not  justify  him  in  the  twofold,  self- 
opposing  work  Avhich  Universahst  as  well  as  orthodox  theories  impute  to  him, 
of  introducing  into  a  universe  free  from  evil,  an  awful  disease  as  well  as  the 
painful  means  of  its  cure. 

3.  If  it  were  true  that  the  evil  which  men  suffer  is  not  merely  a  relative 
good,  (i.  e.,  an  evil  less  than  that  which  it  prevents,)  but  is  actually  the 
means  of  positive  good,  on  the  principle  that  contrast  increases  pleasure  and 

,  is  necessary  to  the  highest  happmess,  then  these  three  revolting  consequen- 
ces would  follow,  viz.,  (1)  that  the  angels  who  have  never  been  blessed  with 
sin  and  misery,  are  deprived  of  the  highest  degree  of  happiness ;  (2)  that 
God  himself,  who  has  been  holy  and  blessed  from  eternity,  cannot  be  so 
happy  as  those  of  his  creatures  who  have  sinned  and  suffered  j  (3)  that  the 


110  OHIGIN    or  EVIL, 

tnan  or  devil  whose  wickedness  has  sunk  him  deepest  in  the  abyss  of  misery, 
will  at  last  be  the  happiest  being  in  existence  ! 

4.  We  have  no  faith  in  the  theory  of  the  Universalists,  that  evil  is  good 
In  disguise,  and  is  a  legitimate,  necessary  product  of  God's  benevolence, 
l>ecause  that  theory  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  simplicity  and  sincerity 
which  we  have  learned  to  look  for  in  the  character  and  administration  of  God, 
The  Bible  says  that '  God  is  love ;'  that  he  '  is  light,  and  in  him  is  no  dark- 
ness at  all;'  that  'he  tempteth  no  man;'  that  his  works  at  the  beginning 
were  '  all  very  good ;'  that  his  gifts  are  '  good  and  perfect.'  In  accordance 
with  these  representations  we  find  him  in  all  his  recorded  dealings  with  man, 
by  word  and  deed,  vehemently  resisting  all  evil.  Now  to  suppose  that  with 
all  this  appearance  of  single-eyed  goodness,  he  actually  decreed  or  permitted 
the  first  birth  of  sin  and  misery,  either  finite  or  infinite,  and  regards  it  as  the 
means  of  the  greatest  good,  is  to  make  him  a  double-dealer,  unworthy  of 
confidence  and  love. 

We  are  satisfied  that  the  actual  goodness  of  God  in  the  gift  of  redemption, 
or  in  the  blessings  of  temporal  existence,  can  never  be  seen  in  its  brightness 
and  immensity,  so  that  the  heart  shall  yield  itself  to  it  with  perfect  faith  and 
love,  and  be  borne  by  it  into  full  and  everlasting  reconciliation,  so  long  as 
that  goodness  is  viewed  through  the  murky  medium  of  that  theology,  whether 
•orthodox  or  Universalist,  which  teaches  that  good  and  evil  spring  ultimately 
from  the  same  fountain.  It  matters  not  whether  sin  and  misery  are  repre- 
sented as  coming  by  the  decree  of  God,  or  by  his  permission ;  whether  they 
are  attributed  to  the  free  will  of  the  creature,  or  to  the  motives  by  which 
<jrod  has  surrounded  him  ; — it  matters  not  how  ingeniously  their  origin  may 
be  mystified,  or  how  long  may  be  the  circuit  of  second  causes  by  which  they 
are  traced  to  their  final  author :  if  they  are  conceived  of  as  a  part  of  God's 
'<;reation — results  of  machinery  which  he  has  set  in  motion  ;  in  short,  if  they 
are  not  separated  in  the  mind  from  the  fruits  of  his  goodness,  and  traced  to 
^a  distinct  and  uiacreated  source,  it  is  impossible  for  simple-minded  men  to 
^ive  him  credit  and  gratitude  for  any  thing  more  than  the  bare  balance  of 
good  over  evil ;  which,  so  far  as  can  be  seen  in  this  world,  is  generally  of 
;small  amount. 

The  reader  of  the  Bible  sees  that  the  redemption  purchased  by  the  atone- 
ment is  represented  as  a  '  great  salvation,'  an  '  unspeakable  gift,'  a  manifes- 
tation of  divine  goodness  which  challenges  all  possible  gratitude.  But  how- 
'•ever  he  may  try  to  beheve  and  conform  his  feelings  to  this  representation,  if 
lie  holds  the  common  views  of  the  origin  of  evil,  he  cannot  help  thinking  in 
liis  heart  that  the  sin  and  misery  which  make  redemption  necessary — as  well 
^as  redemption  itself — is  to  be  ascribed  ultimately  to  God's  agency.  This 
being  the  case,  he  sees  that  the  greatness  of  the  salvation  which  God  gives, 
is  just  the  measure  of  the  greatness  of  the  ruin  which  he  has  previously 
brought  upon  mankind :  the  debt  is  as  great  as  the  credit,  and  the  account 
IS  balanced,  leaving  God's  claims  of  gratitude  no  greater  than  would  be  that 
♦of  a  physician  who  should  first  infect  his  patients  with  some  horrible  disease, 
«,nd  then  labor  to  heal  them.  So  men  are  exhorted  by  religious  teachers  on 
all  sideSj  to  admire  and  be  thankful  for  the  innumerable  mercies  and  bless- 


ORiaiN   OF  EVIL.  Ill 

ings  wKIcIi  surround  tliem  in  the  present  life.  But  every  one  sees  himself 
suiTOunded  also  by  innumerable  evils.  Sin  and  death  cover  the  world  with 
desolations.  Now  if  all  that  exists,  good  and  evil,  bitter  and  sweet,  is  as- 
cribed to  one  origin,  and  lies  mingled  in  the  mind  as  one  mass,  men  will 
hardly  see  much  of  the  goodness  of  God  through  the  compound.  It  certain- 
ly is  not  to  be  wondered  that  the  great  mass  of  mankind  whose  lot  scarcely 
presents  a  preponderance  of  good  over  evil,  and  who  at  the  same  time  are 
taught  to  attribute  that  lot  altogether  to  God,  are  not  very  warm  in  their 
gratitude,  or  sincere  in  their  worship.  They  may  naturally  fear  the  power 
of  God,  and  therefore  be  rehgious  ;  but,  with  hearts  blinded  to  his  goodness, 
however  they  may  use  the  forms  and  professions  of  faith  and  love,  their  re- 
ligion can  be  no  better  than  the  servility  of  sycophants,  bowing  themselves 
before  the  throne  of  a  grim  tyrant. 

The  simple  remedy  for  all  this  lies  in  separating  good  from  evil,  and  at- 
tributing each  to  its  own  distinct,  uncreated  source — bearing  in  mind  mean- 
while, that  God,  the  fountain  of  good,  is  stronger  than  his  adversary,  the 
Devil ;  and  that  within  the  circle  of  creation,  evil  has  its  bounds  beyond 
which  it  cannot  pass ; — so  that  all  evil  may  be  conceived  of,  in  a  negative 
and  protective  sense,  as  subject  to  the  purposes  of  God.  With  these  views 
we  may  sincerely  call  redemption  an  '  unspeakable  gift,'  and  adore  the  good- 
ness which  bestowed  it,  without  subtracting  for  the  ruin  which  made  it 
necessary :  we  may  sum  up  by  itself  all  the  good  which  has  crowned  our 
lives,  and  beholding  through  that  alone  the  benevolence  of  God,  may  trust 
and  love  him  as  heartily  as  if  no  evil  had  ever  come  nigh  us. 


§  15.  THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  SOWER. 

"  When  much  people  were  gathered  together,  and  were  come  to  him  out  of 
every  city,  he  spake  by  a  parable:  A  sower  went  out  to  sow  his  seed  ;  and  as 
he  sowed,  some  fell  by  the  way -side  ;  and  it  was  trodden  down,  and  fowls  of  the 
air  devoured  it.  And  some  fell  upon  a  rock ;  and  as  soon  as  it  was  sprung  up, 
it  withered  away,  because  it  lacked  moisture.  And  some  fell  among  thorns ; 
and  the  thorns  sprang  up  with  it,  and  choked  it.  And  other  fell  on  good  ground, 
and  sprang  up,  and  bare  fruit  an  hundredfold.  And  when  he  had  said  these 
things,  he  cried,  He  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear.  And  his  disciples 
asked  him,  saying.  What  might  this  parable  be  ?  And  he  said.  Unto  you  it  is 
given  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  God:  but  to  others  in  parables ; 
that  seeing  they  might  not  see,  and  hearing  they  might  not  understand.  Now 
the  parable  is  this :  The  seed  is  the  word  of  God,  Those  by  the  way-side  are 
they  that  hear  ;  then  cometh  the  devil,  and  taketh  away  the  word  out  of  their 
hearts,  lest  they  should  believe  and  be  saved.  They  on  the  rock  are  they,  which, 
when  they  hear,  receive  the  word  with  joy  ;  and  these  have  no  root,  which  for  a 
while  believe,  and  in  time  of  temptation  fall  away.  And  that  which  fell  among 
thorns  are  they,  which,  when  they  have  heard,  go  forth,  and  are  choked  with 
cares  and  riches  and  pleasures  of  this  life,  and  bring  no  fruit  to  perfection. — 
But  that  on  the  good  ground  are  they,  which,  in  an  honest  and  good  heart,  hav- 
ing heard  the  word,  keep  it,  and  bring  forth  fruit  with  patience."  LuJce  8:  4-15. 

REMARKS. 

1.  We  learn  from  tins  parable  that  there  is  an  original  difference  in  the 
characters  of  men — a  difference  which  is  not  produced  by  the  gospel,  but 
which  exists  before  the  gospel  is  heard,  and  is  in  fact  the  cause  of  the  differ- 
ent consequences  resulting  from  the  gospel  in  different  persons.  The  '  word 
of  God*  (which  includes  all  the  influences  of  the  gospel)  is  represented  as 
seed  falling  upon  different  sorts  of  ground,  and  becoming  productive  or  un- 
productive according  to  the  quality  of  the  soil  on  which  it  falls.  The  good 
and  bad  qualities  of  the  soil,  of  course,  are  not  produced  by  the  seed,  but 
exist  before  the  seed  is  sown,  and  determine  its  product.  The  plain  purport 
of  the  representation  is  that  some  men's  hearts  are  hard,  sterile  and  decep- 
tive, and  others  '  honest  and  good,'  before  the  '  word  of  God'  comes  to  them ; 
and  that  this  antecedent  difference  in  their  characters  determines  the  effect 
of  the  word  of  God  upon  them. 

2.  We  learn  that  the  grace  of  the  gospel  is  given  to  all,  and  that  the 
only  reason  of  its  failure  to  effect  salvation  in  some  is  the  depravity  of  their 
hearts,  and  not  the  illiberality  or  partiality  of  God,  or  the  defectiveness  of 
the  gospel.  The  seed  was  so^vn  by  the  way-side,  on  the  stony  ground,  and 
among  the  thorns,  as  well  as  on  the  good  ground.  The  sower  was  liberal 
enough  and  the  seed  was  good  enough  to  have  secured  a  harvest  on  the  whole 
field.  The  only  reason  that  parts  of  the  field  were  unproductive  was  the  evil 
nature  of  the  soil.  So  the  gospel  is  sent  to  all  men.  God  is  good  enough 
and  his  word  is  fruitful  enough  to  save  the  whole  world.  The  only  reason 
that  some  never  will  be  saved,  is  that  then*  hearts  are  not  adapted  to  receive 
and  profit  by  the  goodness  of  God  and  the  word  of  his  grace. 


PARABLE  OP  THE  SOWER.  II B 

3.  We  learn  that  the  hearts  of  some  in  their  primary  state,  are  not  '  to- 
tally  depraved''  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  expression,  but  are  so  far  '  honest 
and  good'  that  the  word  of  God  when  it  comes  finds  sympathy  in  them.  This 
truth,  however,  does  not  imply  that  such  persons,  before  receiving  the  grace 
of  the  gospel,  are  'children  of  God,'  and  have  no  need  of  salvation.  Ground 
may  be  good,  and  yet,  for  want  of  seed  and  cultivation,  it  may  produce 
nothing  good.  Nay,  its  very  fertility  may  give  a  ranker  growth  to  evil  seed. 
In  order  that  good  may  be  produced,  there  must  be  not  only  good  ground, 
but  good  seed.  So  men  may  have  '  honest  and  good  hearts'  in  the  sense 
intended  by  the  parable,  and  yet,  without  the  word  of  God,  they  may  pro- 
duce nothing  good ;  but  on  the  contrary,  evil  in  proportion  to  their  fertility. 
Their  goodness  is  negative,  or  perhaps  we  should  say  receptive^  in  distinction 
from  that  which  is  positive  and  active  ;  and  as  such,  is  equally  adapted  to 
foster  either  good  or  evil  influences  from  without.  In  order  to  constitute 
one  a  righteous  man,  and  a  '  child  of  God,'  there  must  be  not  only  a  prima- 
rily '  honest  and  good  heart,'  but  an  infusion  of  the  word  of  God.  The 
'  children  of  the  kingdom'  are  not  saved  by  nature,  but  they  are  adai^ted  by 
nature  to  be  saved  by  grace.  Being  primarily  in  the  devil's  possession,  the 
soil  of  their  hearts  produces  nothing  but  evil,  till  God  takes  possession  of 
them  by  the  gospel.  They  are  therefore  '  by  nature  children  of  wrath  even 
as  others,'  and  can  only  be  saved  by  being  born  again. 

4.  We  learn  by  comparing  this  parable  with  another  which  immediately 
follows  it  in  Matthew's  account  of  Christ's  instructions,  that  the  good  and 
evil  natures  which  men  have  in  their  primary  state,  are  the  offspring  of  the 
Son  of  man  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  devil  on  the  other.  This  parable,  by 
itself,  would  be  hable  to  question.  One  might  say — '  If  the  gospel  is  pro- 
ductive or  unproductive  according  as  the  hearts  on  which  it  falls  are  good  or 
evil,  still  there  is  a  difficulty  back  of  all  this.  Hoiv  came  the  hearts  of  men^ 
in  their  primary  state ^  to  he  good  and  evilf  Christ  therefore  proceeds 
directly  to  answer  this  question,  by  propounding  the  parable  of  the  tares  and 
wheat.  We  will  simply  quote  the  explanation  of  that  parable,  leaving  the 
text  itself  to  the  memory  of  the  reader. 

"  He  answered  and  said  unto  them,  He  that  soweth  the  good  seed  is  the  Son 
of  man  :  the  field  is  the  world  :  the  good  seed  are  the  children  of  the  kingdom ; 
but  the  tures  are  the  children  of  the  wicked  one.  The  enemy  that  sowed  them 
is  the  devil."  Matt,  13:  37—39. 

It  will  be  seen  that  whereas  in  the  former  parable  the  field  is  mankind 
and  the  seed  is  the  word  of  God,  in  this  parable  the  field  is  the  world  and 
the  seed  is  mankind.  In  other  words,  the  different  sorts  of  men  who  are 
represented  by  the  good  and  evil  ground  in  the  first,  are  represented  by  the 
good  and  evil  seed  in  the  second.  So  that  to  the  question — '  How  came 
men  to  have  such  hearts  as  are  represented  by  the  way-side,  stony  and 
thorny  ground  ?'  Christ  answers,  '  He  that  soweth  them  is  the  devil :'  and 
to  the  question — *  How  came  men  to  have  honest  and  good  hearts  ?'  he 
answers,  '  He  that  soweth  them  is  the  Son  of  man.'  This  ends  the  matter. 
There  is  no  room  for  question  still  further  back ;  for  as  the  Son  of  man  was 
good  '  from  the  beginning/  so  the  devil  was  evil '  from  the  beginning.'  We 
14 


114  PARENTAQH  Off  8IN  AND  HOLINESS- 

have  readied  the  two  eternal  causes  of  good  and  evil ;  and  we  have  no  more 
reason  to  ask,  *  How  came  the  devil  to  be  evil  ? — than  '  How  came  the  Son 
of  man  to  be  good  ?* 

These  views  leave  on  the  character  of  God  no  Just  imputation  of  illiberality 
or  partiality,  either  in  respect  to  the  gifts  of  nature  or  of  grace  ;  while  they 
ascribe  salvation,  both  in  respect  to  the  '  honest  and  good  heart'  which  is  it» 
antecedent  condition,  and  the  word  of  the  gospel,  which  is  its  eiSicient  cause^ 
to  the  Son  of  man. 


§16.    THE  PARENTAGE  OF  SIN  AND  HOLINESS. 

'  Whei!^  lust  hath  conceived^  it  hnngeth  forth  sin.^  James  1 :  15.  The 
Greek  word  translated  lust  in  this  passage,  means  simply  desire.  It  is  so 
translated  in  Luke  22:  15,  PhiL  1:  23,  and  is  used  there  and  elsewhere  in 
a  good  s'ense.  James  is  not  to  be  understood  as  intimating  (as  the  usual 
meaning  of  the  word  lust  would  seem  to  intimate)  that  there  is  sin  in  lust 
or  desire  previous  to  the  conception  and  birth  of  sin.  He  means  that  the 
natural  desires  of  human  nature,  which  are  not  sinful  in  themselves,  are  to 
sin  what  the  mother  is  to  the  child. 

Now  in  every  case  of  conception  and  birth,  there  is  not  only  a  mother, 
but  a  father.  Who  then  is  the  father  of  gin  ?  By  whom  does  ^  lust  con- 
ceive'?  The  obvious  answer  is — 'The  Wicked  One.^  Sin  is  the  product  of 
the  joint  agency,  of  human  desire  and  the  spirit  of  Satan.  So  it  was  in  the 
original  transgression.  Eve's  natural  desire  of  food  and  wisdom  was  not  sin- 
ful, but  it  was  a  womb  in  w^hich  the  serpent,  by  words  of  falsehood,  begot 
sin.  The  transgression  was  the  consequence  of  a  spiritual  conjunction  be- 
tween her  desire  and  his  wickedness.  So  it  was  in  the  treason  of  Judas. 
His  love  of  money  was  provoked  and  inflamed  by  the  affair  of  the  alabaster 
box,  and  then  *  Satan  entered  into  him.*  Hence  the  conception  and  birth 
of  his  horrible  crime.  So  in  the  case  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  Peter  asked 
— *  Why  hath  Satan  filled  thine  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost  V  Their  lie 
was  a  child  begotten  in  their  hearts  by  Satan.  Accordingly  John  says  Hhe 
devil  is  a  liar  and  the  father  of  it,^ 

In  natural  generation  the  Father  gives  his  own  image  to  the  child,  and 
the  same  mother  may  bear  children  of  one  complexion  by  one  husband,  and 
children  of  a  different  complexion  by  another.  So  human  desire,  or  the 
mother  of  moral  action,  may  conceive  by  conjuction  with  the  spirit  of  God, 
as  weU  as  with  the  Spirit  of  Satan ;  and  in  that  case  (since  the  child  bears 
the  image  of  the  father)  the  product  will  be  righteousness,  as  in  the  other 
case  it  was  sin.  So  that  the  counterpart  of  our  former  statement  is  also  true, 
viz.,  righteousness  is  the  product  of  the  joint  agency  of  human  desire  and 
the  spirit  of  Crod.  Peter's  strong  susceptibilities  in  conjunction  with  the 
spirit  of  Satan,  produced  impudent  resistance  to  Christ,  and  afterward  a 


THE  CAUSE  AND  THE  CURE.  115 

lying  denial  of  him.  And  those  same  susceptibilities  in  conjunction  with  the 
spirit  of  God  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  brought  forth  innumerable  acts  of 
undaunted  righteousness.  Paul,  with  his  fiery  zeal,  while  he  had  Satan  for 
his  husband,  persecuted  the  flock  of  God  without  mercy.  When  he  was 
married  to  Christ,  the  fruits  of  the  same  fiery  zeal  were  gigantic  labors  of 
love.  By  the  following  specimens  it  will  be  seen  that  the  language  of  scrip- 
ture concerning  the  conception  and  birth  of  righteousness,  is  the  counterpart 
of  James'  description  of  the  generation  of  sin.  '  Being  made  free  from  sin 
and  become  servants  to  God,  [that  is  subjects  of  his  Spirit,]  ye  have  your 
fruit  unto  holiness.''  Rom.  5:  22.  '  Ye  are  become  dead  to  the  law  by  the 
body  of  Christ,  that  ye  should  be  married  to  another,  even  to  him  that  is 
raised  from  the  dead,  that  we  should  bring  forth  fruit  unto  Gfod.^  Rom,  7:  4. 
■See  also  John  15:  5,  Gal.  5:  22, 

The  Bible  theory,  then,  of  the  parentage  of  moral  action  is  briefly  this : 
Human  nature  is  a  female  which  conceives  and  brings  forth  sin  or  right- 
eousness, according  as  it  has  Satan  oi>  God  for  its  husband. 

Practical  Remarks.  1.  We  see  the  foliy  of  attempting  to  prevent  sin 
by  the  law,  or  by  any  means  that  operate  only  to  hinder  actual  transgression. 
While  man  is  married  to  the  devil,  commerce  between  them  must  continue, 
and  conception  must  take  place.  All  the  law  can  do  is  to  forbid  the  birth, 
i.  e.  attempt  to  pi'oduce  abortion,  or  condemn  the  offspring  when  it  is  born. 
The  only  effectual  way  is  to  bring  about  a  divorce,  and  stop  the  commerce 
and  conception.     This  can  be  done  only  by  the  power  of  God. 

2.  We  see  that  the  true  way  to  produce  righteousness  is  to  preach  Christ 
and  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit.  Let  man  be  majried  to  God  by  faith  and 
spiritual  conjunction,  and  righteousness  wiU  be  brought  forth,  by  a  process 
as  sure  as  that  of  natural  generation. 


i^l7.    THE  CAUSE  AND  THE  CURK 

'  They  that  are  whole  need  not  a  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick.'  So 
they  that  are  sick,  will  not  call  the  right  physician,  or  apply  the  right  rem- 
edy, unless  they  know  the  worst  of  their  case — the  inward  depth  and  final 
cause  of  their  malady. 

Antiquated  and  unfashionable  as  our  doctrine  may  seem  in  these  days  of 
scientific  discovery,  we  feel  bound  to  proclaim  in  the  ears  of  all  who  will 
hear  us,  the  old  Bible  theory  of  universal  disease — the  pathology  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  who  constantly  ascribed  all  th'C  spiritual,  moral,  in- 
tellectual and  physical  maladies  of  human  nature  to  the  power  oe  the 
DEVIL.  We  confess,  that  the  more  we  investigate,  the  more  we  are  attach- 
ed to  Bible  notions  and  Bible  language  on  this  subject.  If  a  man  is  afflicted 
with  fever  or  epilepsy,  instead  of  looking  into  his  blood  or  his  nerves,  his 
hereditary  constitution  or  his  diet,  for  the  ultimate  cause,  we  go  back  with 


11(5  THE  CAUSE  AND  THE  CURE. 

Jesus  Christ  to  the  vital  principle,  and  ascribe  his  disease  to  the  power  of  an 
ev^il  spirit.  (See  Acts  10:  38,  Luke  13:  11 — 16,  &c.)  If  a  man's  mind 
is  dark  and  impervious  to  the  beams  of  truth,  instead  of  regarding  this  as 
the  effect  simply  of  the  structure  of  his  brain,  or  of  his  lack  of  education  or 
attention,  we  take  Paul's  account  of  the  matter  and  beheve  that '  the  god  of 
tliis  world  hath  blinded  him.'  (2Cor.  4:  4.)  When  men  pommit  immoralities, 
instead  of  laving  the  blame  on  external  temptation,  we  hold  with  Peter  that 
they  work  wickedness  because  '  Satan  hath  filled  their  hearts.'  (Acts  6:  3, 
John  13:  2.)  If  men's  spirits  are  hard,  impenitent  and  dead  to  all  the  at- 
ti-actions  of  heaven,  w^e  find  the  ultimate  cause  of  tlie  fact,  not  in  their 
individual  wills,  but  in  the  dominion  which  the  '  prince  of  the  power  of  the 
air'  exercises  over  them.  (Eph,  2:  2,  2Tim.  2:  26.)  Unphilosophical  and 
superstitious  as  we  may  be  deemed  for  this  avowal,  we  are  persuaded  that 
even  scientific  investigation  is  progressing  directly  toward  this  very  theory, 
and  that  when  the  wisdom  of  this  world  has  run  through  its  whole  circle  of 
discovery,  it  will  find  itself  brought  back  to  its  most  ancient  starting  point, 
and  will  die  acknowledging  the  truth  of  the  Bible  philosophy  of  life. 

In  holding  these  views  of  the  ultimate  cause  of  human  maladies,  we  are 
not  obliged  to  overlook  or  di&regard  secondary  causes.  All  those  external 
influences  and  acts  which  are  ordinarily  regarded  by  physicians  and  meta- 
physicians as  the  causeSy  we  admit  are  the  occasions  of  disorder  in  the  econ- 
omy of  human  nature,  and  we  attach  due  importance  to  them  as  such.  If 
a  man  in  a  state  of  perspiration  exposes  himself  to  a  current  of  air,  takes 
cold,  is  prostrated  by  fever,  and  dies,  we  do  not  attribute  his  death  to  the 
devil  irrespective  of  his  own  acts  and  the  physical  influences  which  operated 
upon  him.  But  we  call  the  action  of  the  air  upon  his  body,  and  the  conse- 
quent corruption  of  his  blood,  the  predisposing  causes  or  occasions  of  his 
death,  and  the  power  of  the  devil  the  ultimate  cause.  We  say  that  by  hia 
imprudence  he  exposed  himself  to  a  fatal  influx  of  spiritual  poison,  and  so* 
the  devil  killed  him.  If  a  ship  strikes  a  rock,  springs  a  leak,  and  finally 
sinks,  the  collision  and  the  leak  are,  in  popular  language,  the  causes  of  the 
disaster.  But  strictly  speaking,  the  water  which  run  in  at  the  leak,  sunk 
the  ship.  So  the  cold  and  the  fever  may  properly  be  called^  in  common  laiH 
guage,  the  causes  of. the  man's  death;  but,  strictly  speaking,  the  power  of 
the  devil  which  rushed  in  at  the  opening  made  by  the  cold  and  the  fever, 
killed  him.  So,  too,  outward  immorahties  are  properly  regarded  as  the  oc- 
casions of  spiritual  disease  and  death.  Men  are  '  afienated  [from  God]  hy 
wiaJced  ivorjcs/  Col.  1:  21.  But  the  most  deadly  result  of  wicked  works  is 
not  the  direct  mischief  which  they  work  either  objectively  or  subjectively, 
but  the  '  breach  in  the  spirit'  and  the  influx  of  Satanic  influence  which  they 
occasion. 

For  the  purpose  of  embarrassing  our  position,  physiologists  may  ask 
whether  a  man  might  hold  his  hand  in-  tke  fire  without  injury,  if  there  wa* 
no  devil  ?  We  answer ;  unless  a  proper  miracle  (as  in  the  case  of  Shadrach 
and  his  companions)  should  suspend  the  laws  of  nature,  the  man's  hand 
would  undoubtedly  be  burned  and  he  would  suffer  pain.  But  there  would 
be  this  difference  between  liis  case  and  ordinary  cases  at  present ;  viz.,  there 


THE   CAUSI^  AND   THfi   GURU.  11 T 

would  be  no  subsequent  inflammation,  no  chronic  ulceration ;  the  power  of 
life  would  speedily  repair  the  injury :  whereas  under  the  poisonous  influence 
of  Satan,  external  wounds  sometimes  expand  into  permanent  and  fatal  dis^ 
eases,  and  the  cure  of  them  is  often  protracted  and  difficult.  Thus  while 
we  may  admit  that  in  a  w^orld  free  from  diaboUcal  power,  external  injuries^ 
both  physical  and  spiritual,  would  be  possible,  yet  we  afiinn  that  there  would 
be  no  vital  and  chronic  diseases  either  of  soul  or  body*  And  we  may  say 
further,  that,  if  there  was  no  devil  to  pervert  the  understandings  and  cor- 
rupt the  ways  of  men,  the  laws  of  nature  would  not  be  transgressed,  and 
even  external  injuries,  though  physically  possible,  would  be  exceedingly  rare^ 
if  not  altogether  unknown. 

Nor  are  we  obliged  by  our  theory  to  suppose  that  the  devil  is  omniscient 
and  omnipresent  in  such  a  sense  that  he  personally  purposes  and  superintends 
every  particular  instance  of  sin  and  death  that  occurs  in  the  world.  The 
true  view  is  this  : — Satan's  s^pirit  is  an  atmosphere  that  envelopes  mankind, 
pressing  (we  may  say  figuratively)  hke  the  air,  with  a  w^eight  of  '  fifteen 
pomids  on  every  square  inch'  of  human  life.  Wherever  there  is  a  vacuum 
in  men's  hearts,  there  that  spirit  enters,  and  manifests  itself  in  selfishness,' 
covetousness,  and  all  evil  works.  Wherever  the  laws  of  life  are  violated, 
either  physically  or  spiritually,  there  that  spirit  infuses  its  poison,  aggrava- 
ting and  perpetuating  the  injury.  '  We  know,'  says  the  apostle,  '  that  the 
whole  world  lieth  in  the  wicked  one.''  1  John  5:  19.  We  can  easily  con- 
ceive that  any  number  of  men,  lying  in  a  poisonous  atmosphere,  migiit  be 
diseased  by  it  in  a  variety  of  ways,  without  supposing  any  personal  superin-^ 
tendence  of  the  being  from  whom  the  poison  might  emanate. 

We  believe  that  the  devil  is  a  personal  being,  and  that  he  exercises  an  ex' 
tensive  personal  superintendence  over  specific  transactions,  (as  for  instance, 
in  the  temptation  of  Christ,  and  in  the  treachery  of  Judas.)  Indeed  we  see 
much  evidence  that  there  is  a  general  influence  at  work  in  the  affairs  of  the 
world,  which  might  properly  be  called  the  deviVs  j)rovidence.  Eut  ^\e  re-- 
gard  it  as  altogether  unnecessary  and  foolish  to  refer  (as  some  are  prone  ta 
do)  every  particular  manifestation  of  evil  to  the  personal  volitions  of  Satan  ^ 
The  universal  presence  and  pressure  of  his  spirit  is  a  sufficient  cause  of 
■  general  evil ;  and  w^e  are  justified  by  the  example  of  the  Bible  writers  in 
referring  to  tliis  cause  every  specific  instance  of  sin  and  suffering. 

This  theory  of  spiritual  pressure  throws  light  on  many  moral  phenomena,, 
just  as  the  discovery  of  the  weight  of  the  atmosphere  explained  many  physi' 
cal  facts  which  were  before  mysterious.  The  time  was  when  men  (philoso-- 
phers  and  all)  supposed  that  the  ascent  of  water  in  a  pump  w^as  produced 
by  some  inexplicable  attraction,  or  suction,  as  it  was  called,  of  the  piston  or" 
bucket.  In  other  words,  they  imagined  that  the  power  which  raised  ther 
.  water  was  in  the  pump.  But  it  is  now  well  known  that  the  water  is  forced 
up  in  the  pump  by  the  atmosphere  without,  which  presses  with  a  weight  of 
fifteen  pounds  on  every  square  inch  of  the  earth's  surface.  The  only  effect 
of  the  piston  is  to  remove  this  pressure  from  the  water  within  the  pump,  and- 
so  allow  the  pressure  on  the  outside  to  force  that  water  upward.  In  like' 
mamier,  men  are  accustomed  to  imagine,  when  they  see   a  person  full  of 


118  THE  CAUSE  AND  THE  CURE, 

covefcousness  for  instance,  that  the  cause  of  his  covetousness  is  in  himself. 
Whereas  our  philosophy  teaches  that  he  is  notliing  but  a  spiritual  cylinder 
into  which  the  atmospheric  selfishness  that  covers  the  whole  world  has  forced 
an  extra  amount  of  mammonism.  His  own  will,  like  the  piston,  only  removes 
the  opposing  force — and  the  phenomena  of  his  character,  like  those  of  pump- 
ing, may  be  said  to  be  illustrations  of  general '  atmospheric  pressure,'  rather 
than  of  individual  '  suction.'  The  same  principle  might  be  applied  and  illus- 
trated in  many  otlier  ways  ;  but  it  is  sufficient  to  say  in  general  that  we  shall 
never  understand  our  own  characters  or  those  of  others — never  know  how  to 
exercise  discriminating  charity  in  judgment — never  have  just  views  of  the 
nature  and  causes  of  the  physical  and  intellectual,  as  well  as  moral  and  spir- 
itual evils  that  exist  around  us, — until  we  learn  to  regard  individual  action 
and  experience  as  the  result  in  a  very  great  measure  of  a  general  spiritual 
influence. 

The  fact  that  '  the  whole  w^orld  lieth  in  the  wicked  one,'  is  not  inconsis- 
tent with  the  existence  of  much  donnant  and  incipient  good  in  human  nature. 
Indeed,  the  '  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air'  has  within  his  spiritual  enclo- 
sures many  rebellious  forces  to  contend  with.  The  self-preservative  and 
reproductive  powers  of  all  life,  the  whole  machinery  of  nature  as  constructed 
by  God,  as  well  as  the  life-giving  elements  which  have  been  infused  into 
human  nature  by  revelation  spiritual  and  written,  are  constantly  resisting 
and  frustrating  more  or  less  the  tendencies  of  the  power  of  death.  Satan  is 
obliged  to  allow  in  his  subjects  many  liberties  which  are  adverse  to  his  do- 
minion. And  indeed  he  can  aftbrd  to  do  so,  just  as  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  for  instance,  can  afford  to  allow  individuals  and  associations 
to  go  almost  any  length  in  sedition,  provided  they  stop  short  of  overt  re- 
belHon.  Men  may  study  and  combine  to  preserve  th-eir  lives  and  health 
under  the  devil's  administration,  and  may  actually  preserve  them  a  long 
time  ;  but  they  are  not  allowed  to  attempt,  or  even  to  think  of  attempting 
to  escape  death  at  last.  This  would  be  treason.  They  may  extend  discov- 
ery far  and  wide  in  every  department  of  physical  science  from  geology  to 
mesmerism ;  but  they  must  not  break  through  into  the  mysteries  of  the  spir- 
itual world.  This  would  be  prying  into  jState  secrets.  They  may  make 
great  advances  in  civilization,  refinement  and  morality  ;  but  they  must  not 
think  of*  attaining  entire  freedom  from  sin.  This  would  be  renouncing  alle- 
^^ance  to  his  majesty  the  devil.  They  may  go  all  lengths  in  ascetic  or  be- 
nevolent piety ;  they  may  ascend  even  to  the  verge  of  heaven  in  the  trans- 
ports of  voluntary  devotion  ;  but  they  must  not  enter  into  open  communica- 
tion, and  permanent  vital  union  Avith  God.  This  would  be  joining  the  enemy. 
Thus  there  is  a  certain  limited  circle  of  improvement  in  health,  knowledge, 
morality  and  pi^ty  within  which  men  may  act  freely,  without  incurring  #  the 
penalties  of  rebellion  ;  but  if  they  step  beyond  that  circle,  they  find  them- 
selves engaged  in  a  fierce  spiritual  war  with  the  '  god  of  this  world.' 

Now  it  is  certain  that  those  wlio  remain  within  that  circle,  however  moral 
<w  religious  they  may  be,  are  subjects  of  the  devil,  '  led  captive  at  his  will,' 
not  indeed  in  respect  to  the  minor  matters  of  life,  (which  .we  have  admitted 
may  be  conducted  in  a  manner  adverse  to  his  interests,)  but  in  respect  to 


THE  CAUSE  AND  THE  CURE.  119 

tlielr  weightiest  obligations  and  interests,  viz.,  those  which  relate  to  spiritual 
holiness  and  communication  with  God.  All  the  morality  or  religion  which 
they  can  have  within  that  circle,  can  be  only  2u  preparation  for  the  morahty 
and  reUgion  of  the  second  birth.  They  are  '  in  the  wicked  one' — uneasy 
and  seditious  under  his  government  perhaps,  waiting  and  hoping  for  power 
to  escape  ;  but  yet,  '  in  the  wicked  one.'  Their  life  is  open  to  the  pressure 
of  his  spirit ;  their  wills  are  limited  by  his  will.  They  cannot  become  sons 
of  God  till  they  break  out  of  the  circle  of  sin  and  death  into  the  light  of 
heaven,  and  vital  union  with  God.  The  simple  reason  of  the  hard  saying, 
^  He  that  committeth  sin  is  of  the  devil,'  is  that  the  spirit  of  sin  is  that  spirit 
of  the  devil  which  broods  over  and  encloses  unregenerate  human  nature,  and 
he  that  commits  sin,  thereby  demonstrates  his  union  with  and  subjection  to 
that  spirit,  whatever  may  be  his  character  and  state  in  other  respects.  '  He 
that  committeth  sin  is  the  servant  of  sin,'  and  he  that  is  the  servant  of  sin 
is  a  spiritual  member  of  the  devil.  ''  y 

Redemption  commences  in  an  individual  when  he  begins  to  discover  the 
hatefulness  and  amazing  strength  of  the  evil  power  that  enthralls  him. — 
While  he  is  content  with  those  partial  improvements  which  are  licensed  4 
within  the  devil's  dominions,  the  spirit  of  sin  within  him  is  comparatively 
dormant.  But  when  his  conscience  is  awakened  by  the  perfect  law  of  God, 
and  he  begins  to  try  his  strength  against  the  outer  circle  of  Satan's  spirit, 
seeking  to  break  through  into  actual  holiness,  sin  revives  within  him  and 
shows  its  power.  At  first  it  infuses  into  him  a  deceptive  notion  of  his  self- 
sufficiency,  by  which  it  leads  him  to  attempt  holiness  in  his  own  strength, 
under  the  point-blank  batteries  of  the  law.  He  marches  up  to  the  deadly 
breach,  and  falls  back  wounded  and  discouraged.  Again  and  again  he  makes 
the  vain  attempt,  and  at  every  failure  sinks  deeper  in  despair  and  spiritual 
death.  At  length  dire  experience  kills  out  his  false  and  proud  philosophy 
about  free-Avill,  and  he  discovers  that  something  stronger  than  his  own  spirit 
is  concerned  in  his  sinfulness,  and  that  something  stronger  must  help  him  to 
holiness.  He  learns  that  there  is  a  mighty  devil  whose  spirit  envelopes  and 
works  in  him — that  there  is  a  '  law  of  sin  in  his  members'  emanating  from 
a  power  independent  of  himself,  holding  captive  his  vrill  with  inexorable  ob- 
stinacy, and  invincible  strength.  He  is  forced  to  the  conclusion — '  It  is  no 
more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.'  If  the  difficulty  were  in  his 
own  individual  will  alone,  he  might  have  hope.  But  he  finds  that  a  will  far 
mightier  than  his  holds  him  in  bondage  to  sin  and  death.  He  perceives  that 
the  law,  acting  upon  his  own  understanding  and  susceptibilities  only,  and 
not  upon  the  power  which  enslaves  him,  can  only  torment  and  destroy  him, 
just  as  a  wheel  locked  into  some  mighty  machinery  and  revolving  by  its  pow- 
er, would  only  be  corroded  and  broken  by  being  placed  in  contact  with  a 
wheel  belonging  to  a  separate  machine,  and  revolvuig  m  an  opposite  direc- 
tion. He  finds  that  he  can  be  saved  only  by  being  detached  from  the  spir- 
itual power  of  the  devil,  and  that  this  can  be  effected  only  by  a  spirit 
stronger  than  the  devil.  Experience  has  taught  him  that  his  own  spirit  is  no  / 
match  for  the  destroyer,  and  thus  he  is  brought  to  look  abroad  for  help.  V 
His  final  cry  is — '  0  wretched  man  that  I  am^  who  shall  deliver  me  from 


130  THE  CAUSE  AND  THE  CURE. 

the  body  of  this  death  ?  Who  shall  detach  me  from  the  power  of  the  evil  one  V 
Now  he  is  ready  to  lay  hold  on  salvation  by  grace. 

Here  we  may  see  the  nature  of  true  repentance  ;  that  repentance  which 
God  gives  men,  '  that  they  may  recover  themselves  out  of  the  snare  of  the 
devil,  who  are  taken  captive  by  him  at  his  will.'  2  Tim.  2:  25,  26.  It  may 
be,  at  the  beginning,  a  conviction  of  individual  sins — a  sorrow  for  personal 
deeds  done ;  but  in  the  end  it  becomes  an  abhorrence  of  the  devil,  and  of 
self  as  spiritually  identified  with  the  devil.  The  spirit  of  God,  Avhich  '  pierces 
to  the  di\ading  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit,'  begins  to  insinuate  itself  between 
the  individual  and  the  evil  spirit  which  envelops  him.  The  effect  of  this  in- 
fusion is  to  turn  the  eye  of  his  conscience  on  his  spiritual  state,  and  to  pro- 
duce self-loathing.  That  part  of  the  man  which  receives  and  sympathizes 
with  the  spirit  of  God,  imbibes  God's  hatred  of  sin,  and  thus  begms  to  hate 
that  other  part  which  is  in  union  with  the  devil,  as  God  hates  the  devil. — 
Instead  of  looking  at  his  works,  the  man  literally  '  hates  his  own  life,^  as 
being  '  part  and  parcel'  of  that  poisonous  spirit  which  is  the  fountain  of 
imiversal  sin.  So  too,  godly  sorrow,  at  the  beginning,  before  it  has  pene- 
trated to  the  heart's  core,  may  manifest  itself  in  attempts  to  turn  from  evil 
deeds,  to  good  deeds  ;  but  in  the  end  it  '  works  repentance  mito  life' — a 
turning  from  the  spirit  of  sin  to  the  spirit  of  the  living  God.  Any  repen- 
tance which  exercises  itself  merely  about  works,  and  stops  short  of  a  thorough 
purgation  of  the  vital  principle,  by  expelling  the  virus  of  Satan  and  admit- 
ting the  life  of  God,  is  not  Bible  repentance,  and  will  need  to  be  '  repented  of,' 
at  last.  True  repentance  is  effected  by  the  spirit  of  God  ministered  through 
his  word.  Faith,  or  a  spiritual  apprehension  of  the  existence,  power  and 
hatefulness  of  the  devil  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  existence,  resurrection- 
energy,  and  glorious  holiness  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus,  .  on  the  other,  is  its 
principal  ingredient. 

This  repentance  is  the  be^ning  of  universal  and  eternal  victory  over  the 
devil.  lie  who  has  fought  and  won  this  fight,  will  conquer  in  every  battle 
afterward  for  ever.  Death  is  dethroned  within  him,  and  eternal  life  is  begun. 
He  has  found  out  the  cause,  and  obtained  the  cure  of  all  evil. 


§  18.    THE  ATONEMENT. 

It  is  important  that  the  great  act  of  redemption,  fulfilled  by  the  death  of 
Christ,  should  not  be  conceived  of  as  an  act  of  mere  benevolence.  God's 
love  toward  the  world,  manifested  in  that  act,  was  chaste,  as  well  as  fervent ; 
prudent,  as  well  as  generous.  The  atonement  was  made  for  the '  whole  world f 
it  reconciled  huynan  nature  to  God ;  and  it  freely  offers  to  all  men  forgiveness 
and  salvation.  But  this  is  only  one  half  of  its  object  and  result.  In  the 
other  half  (which  seems  to  be  generally  overlooked,)  we  behold  instead  of 
the  '  goodness,'  the  '  severity'  of  God.  The  atonement  was  not  made  for  the 
devil — it  effected  no  reconciliation  of  the  divine  and  diabolical  natures — it 
offers  no  forgiveness,  no  salvation  to  Satan  and  his  angels.  On  the  contrary, 
Christ  died  '  that  he  might  destroy*  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is 
the  devil.'  Heb.  2:  14.  In  the  very  act  by  which  man  was  redeemed, '  the 
prince  of  this  world  was  judged.'  John  12:  31,  32. 

When  Adam  sinned,  he  threw  himself  into  the  arms  of  the  devil.  His 
posterity,  in  consequence  of  this  surrender,  came  into  being  within  the  circle 
of  the  devil's  spiritual  attraction — under  a  law  of  gravitation  toward  sin  and 
death.  Every  individual,  before  Christ,  by  his  own  sin  repeated  and  con- 
firmed Adam's  surrender.  Thus  the  human  and  diabolical  natures  were 
married  and  identified — the  spirit  of  man  and  the  devil  became  one.  Thus 
'judgment  unto  condemnation,' — the  condenmation  of  him  who  was  a  hope- 
less liar  and  murderer  ^  from  the  beginning,' — passed  upon  all  men.  Thus 
the  devil  became  'the  prince  of  tJiis  world.' 

We  must  however  distinguish  between  the  guilt  of  the  parties  to  this  dread- 
ful combination.  The  devil  was  the  seducer  ;  man  was  the  victim.  The  sin 
of  Adam  and  his  posterity  was  not  original  in  themselves  ;  but  instigated, 
begotten,  spiritually  infused  by  their  tempter.  This  distinction  enters  into 
the  whole  plan  of  redemption,  and  determines  the  measure  of  the  atonement. 
God  has  made-  arrangements  for  saving  the  victim,  but  not  the  seducer.  The 
devil  is  destroyed,  not  redeemed,  by  the  act  that  sets  his  captives  free. 

These  arrangements  are  fully  justified  by  the  assumption  (on  the  basis  of 
which  they  are  obviously  made,)  that  the  devil  is  a  hopeless  sinner,  and  man 
is  not.  We  leave  it  with  those  who  believe  the  devil  to  be  a  part  of  God's 
creation,  to  verify  this  assumption  as  they  may.  We  believe  the  devil  is  a 
hopeless  sinner,  because  he  is  an  uncreated  being — one  whose  sin  never  had  a 
beginning,  and  therefore  never  will  have  an  end. 

However  this  may  be,  if  it  is  true  that  under  the  apostacy,  man  and  the 

*  The  word  translated  destroy  in  this  passage,  primarily  means,  to  render  i7iactive,  idle, 
useless.  (See  Robinson,  Schreveiius,  &c.)  It  does  not  mean  to  annihilate.  This  may 
be  seen  by  an  example.  In  the  parable  of  the  fig- tree  (Luke  13:  7)  the  master  of  tho 
vineyard  says;  '  Cut  it  down,  why  cumbereth  it  the  ground?'  The  original  word  here 
rendered  cumbereth,  is  the  same  as  that  rendered  destroy  in  Heb.  2:  14.  The  man  certainly 
does  not  mean  that  the  fig  tree  annihilates  the  ground,  but  that  it  renders  it  useless.  In 
fact  the  word  destroy  is  often  used  in  the  same  way,  i.  e.  to  signify,  not  annihilation, 
but  termination  of  power,  activity,  «fec.  Napoleon  was  destroyed  at  Waterloo,  though  he 
existed  aflerward.     So  Christ's  death  will  bring  to  nought  the  devil's  kingdom. 

15 


123  #       TIIE  ATONEMENT. 

devil  are  one,  and  that  the  devil  is  a  hopeless  sinner,  then  it  is  manifest  that 
the  first  step  of  redemption  must  be  a  separation  of  man  from  the  deviL 
This  indeed  is  not  the  whole,  or  even  the  principal  work  necessary  in  the  case. 
It  is  only  the  negative  part  of  salvation.  The  positive  is  union  with  God. 
But  the  divorce  of  the  first  husband  is  as  essential  as  the  marriage  to  the 
second,  and  must  go  before  it.  The  evil  spirit  must  first  be  exorcised,  and 
then  the  good  spirit  may  take  its  place. 

In  examining  the  nature  of  the  atonement,  then,  our  first  inquiry  is — How 
did  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ  destroy  the  devil  ? 

'  When  a  strong  man  armed  keepeth  his  palace,  his  goods  are  in  peace  : 
but  when  a  stronger  than  he  shall  come  upon  him,  and  overcome  him,  he 
taketh  from  him  all  his  armor  wherein  he  trusted,  and  divideth  his  spoils.' 
Luke  11:  21,  22.  Jesus  Christ  uttered  this  saying  Avith  direct  reference  to 
his  warfare  with  Satan.  The  principle  which  it  contains  may  guide  us  to  an. 
answer  to  the  above  question. 

In  the  first  place  it  was  necessary,  in  order  to  the  accomplishment  of  the 
victory  by  which  man  is  redeemed,  that  Jesus  Christ  should  be  stronger  than 
the  devil — ^i.  e.  that  he  should  be,  as  he  was,  the  uncreated  Son  of  God. 
See  p.  103,  paragraph  (3.) 

In  the  next  place  it  was  necessary  that  Jesus  Christ  should  '■come  iqwn^ 
the  strong  man  who  kept  the  world  as  his  palace,  and  held  the  souls  of  men 
as  his  goods.  He  therefore  took  upon  him  human  nature.  Thus  the  strength 
of  the  Godhead  was  brought  into  immediate  contact  with  the  strength  of  the 
devil,  in  the  very  field  which  was  to  be  won. 

But  human  nature,  in  the  mere  corruption  of  the  original  fall,  was  not  the' 
field  in  which  sm  manifested  its  full  strength.  '  The  law  entered  that  the 
ofiense  might  abound.'  It  may  be  truly  said  that  when  God  placed  man  un- 
der the  law,  human  nature  suffered  a  second  fail.  In  the  Jewish  nation 
durmg  its  legal  dispensation,  sin  w^as  ripened — the  energies  of  Satan  were 
concentrated — and  the  union  of  the  human  and  diabolical  natures  was  as  far 
as  possible  perfected.  Christ,  therefore,  took  upon  him  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham— '  was  made  under  the  law,  that  he  might  redeem  thenn^hat  were  under 
the  law.'  The  energy  of  the  Godhead  entered  human  nature,  at  the  point 
where  Satan's  seat  and  strength  was. 

In  due  time  a  desperate  conflict  commenced  between  the  divine  nature  an 
the  one  hand,  and  the  spirit  of  the  devil  on  the  other,  with  human  nature 
for  the  battle-field.  "We  may  notice  two  critical  points  in  the  |f  ogress  of  this 
conflict,  previous  to  the  death-struggle,  in  which  it  was  finally  decided.  At 
the  commencement  of  Christ's  ministry,  Satan  made  a  personal  attempt  to 
seduce  him  into  sin.  After  plying  him  with  temptations  similar  to  those  by 
which  Adam  fell,  and  others  more  subtle  and  mighty,  with  every  advantage 
that  could  give  them  force,  the  tempter  was  forced  to  quit  the  field,  bafl^led 
and  dismayed.  Christ  followed  up  this  victory  by  a  proclamation  of  the 
gospel,  and  an  outpouring  of  the  spirit  of  life.  In  defiance  of  the  power  of 
death  which  had  hitherto  reigned  over  human  nature,  he  at  once  began  to 
heal  all  manner  of  diseases  and  cast  out  devils,  by  his  word.  Matt.  4:  24, 
At  a  later  period,  after  he  had  evinced  his  own  personal  triumph,  he  com- 


THE  ATONEMENT.  123 

missioned  seventy  disciples  to  go  abroad  through  the  land,  with  the  same  vic- 
torious power.  They  returned  '  saying,  Lord,  even  the  devils  are  subject 
unto  us  through  thy  name.  And  he  said  unto  them,  I  beheld  Satan  as  lightr 
ning  fall  from  heaven.'^  Luke  10:  1,  18.  Here,  as  in  the  former  action^ 
the  defeat  of  the  devil  stands  in  immediate  conjunction  with  the  going  forth 
of  the  spirit  of  life.  By  these  tokens  we  may  discern  the  nature  of  the  in- 
visible conflict  which  was  in  progress.  As  the  devil  withdrew  from  human, 
nature,  God  entered.  And  thus,  we  shall  see,  wdien  Satan  was  decisively 
and  forever  overthrown,  in  the  battle  of  the  cross,  God  was  fully  reconciled 
to  human  nature,  and  poured  forth  the  spirit  of  life  upon  all  flesh. 

We  have  said  that  it  was  necessary  that  Christ  should  become  a  man,  that 
he  might  redeem  men  ;  and  that  he  should  be  made  under  the  law,  that  he 
might  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law.  We  now  advance  a  step  fur- 
ther. It  iva§  necessary  that  he  should  die,  that  he  might  redeem  the  dead. 
The  same  spiritual  law  that  required  his  incarnation,  and  his  subjection  to 
Judaism,  also  required  his  submission  to  death.  Human  nature,  viewed  as 
a  whole,  perpetually  existing,  was  principally  in  the  invisible  world,  beyond 
the  vail.  The  living  generation  w^as  only  the  surface  of  mankind — as  it 
were,  the  visible  bark  of  a  tree, — -whose  sap  and  heart  were  in  the  regions 
of  death.  In  that  same  inner  world,  the  devil  had  his  sanctuary,  '  He  that 
had  the  power  of  death,'  was  in  a  special  sense  '  the  lord  of  the  dead.'  The 
living  were  linked  to  him  by  sin;  but  the  dead  were  his  by  the  double  chain 
of  sin  and  death.  If  Jesus  Christ,  then,  would  redeem  human  nature  as  a 
whole,— if  he  would  encounter  and  destroy  the  devil  in  his  sanctuary, — he 
must  descend  from  the  surface  into  the  heart  of  the  tree  ;  he  must  follow 
human  nature,  Avhere  Satan  had  dragged  it,  into  the  '  lower  parts  of  the 
earth.'  '  To  this  end  Christ  both  died  and  rose  and  revived,  that  he  might 
l)e  Lord  both  of  the  deg,d  and  the  living.'  Rom.  14:  9. 

It  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  Christ's  death  was  for  the  benefit 
only  of  the  dead.  It  was  necessary  to  the  redemption  of  the  living,  for  two 
reasons :  first,  because  the  living  were  spiritually  connected  with  the  dead, 
and  under  the  power  of  inevitable  gravitation  toward  death ;  and  secondly, 
because  the  destruction  of  the  devil  was  necessary  to  the  redemption  of  all. 
The  death  of  Christ  destroyed  the  cause  of  death,  for  the  living  as  w^ell  as 
for  the  dead. 

We  are  ik)w  prepared,  at  least  in  part,  to  answer  the  question — How  did 
■the  death  of  Christ  destroy  the  devil  ?  It  destroyed  him  by  admitting  the 
eternal  life  of  the  Son  of  God  into  immediate  contact  with  the  seat  of  his  life. 
It  unbarred  the  last  and  darkest  recess  of  the  strong  man's  palace, — and 
there  the  stronger  man  overcame  and  bound  him. 

The  death  of  Christ  was  evidently  a  spiritual  baptism  into  the  devil,  of 
which  the  corporeal  crucifixion  was  only  an  index  and  consummation.  A 
day,  at  least,  before  his  crucifixion,  he  said  to  the  people,  'Noio  is  my  soul 
troubled  ;  and  what  shall  I  say  ?  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour :  but  for 
this  cause  came  I  unto  this  hour.  *  *  *  ^^^^  {g  iji^  judgment  of  tM$ 
tvorld:  nqiv  shall  the  prince  of  this  ivorld  he  cast  out.''  John  12:  27,  31. 
He  was  then  entering  the  cloud  of  death.    A  few  hours  later,  when  he  was 


124  THE  ATONEMENT.         ^ 

alone  with  his  disciples,  his  '  soul  was  sorrowful  even  unto  death.''  The 
magnetism  of  the  devil  was  upon  him — as  was  indicated  by  the  drowsiness 
of  the  disciples,  as  well  as  by  his  own  bloody  agon^jr*"  With  a  desperate  pur- 
pose of  either  corrupting  or  destroying  him,  Satan  poured  himself  out  upon 
the  Son  of  God,  thus  interposing  his  own  black  spirit  between  the  sufferer 
and  his  Father,  and  causing  him  to  drink  of  the  cup  of  that  fury,  which  was 
drawn  forth  from  God,  not  by  his  sin,  but  by  the  sin  of  Satan. 

This  Pentecost  of  the  devil,  be  it  remembered,  took  place  on  Thursday, 
the  day  before  the  crucifixion.  Thus  Christ's  prediction  that  he  should  be 
'  in  the  heart  of  the  earth  three  days  and  three  nights,^  (Matt.  12:  40,)  was 
fulfilled.  Counting  from  the  crucifixion,  his  death  continued  only  two  nights 
and  a  part  of  three  days.  Counting  from  the  time  of  his  baptism  into  the 
devil,  whose  sanctuary  was  the  '  heart  of  the  earth,'  he  died  three  days  and 
three  nights  before  his  resurrection. 

In  that  baptism  the  devil  and  the  Son  of  God  met  face  to  face — their  re- 
spective strength  was  tried  to  the  uttermost — and  the  devil  was  overcome 
and  cast  out.  Thus  Christ  became  what  the  devil  had  been  before,  the 
'  prince  of  this  world' — the  Lord  of  the  living  and  the  dead. 

That  the  destruction  of  the  devil  was  a  part  of  the  atonement,  and  had  an 
important  agency  in  reconciling  the  world  to  God,  maybe  seen  by  reference 
to  several  interesting  illustrations  in  the  Old  Testament. 

I.  The  following  account  of  the  destruction  of  Zimri  and  Cozbi  by  Phin- 
ehas,  presents  a  pertinent  example  of  the  Bible  idea  of  atonement : 

"  Israel  abode  in  Shittim,  and  the  people  began  to  commit  whoredom  with  the 
daughters  of  Moab.  And  they  called  the  people  unto  the  sacrifices  of  their  gods  : 
and  the  people  did  eat,  and  bowed  down  to  their  gods.  And  Israel  joined  himself 
unto  Caal-peor  :  and  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was  kindled  against  Israel.  And  the 
Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Take  all  the  heads  of  the  people,  and  hang  them  up  before 
the  Lord  against  the  sun,  that  thu  fierce  anger  of  the  Lord  may  be  turned  away 
from  Israel.  And  Moses  said  unto  the  judges  of  Israel,  Slay  ye  every  one  his 
men  that  were  joined  unto  Baal-peor.  And,  behold,  one  of  the  children  of  Israel 
came,  and  brought  unto  his  brethren  a  Midianitish  woman,  in  the  sight  of  Moses, 
and  in  the  sight  of  all  the  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel,  who  were  weep, 
ing  before  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation.  And  when  Phinehas 
the  son  of  Eleazar  the  son  of  Aaron  the  priest,  saw  it,  he  rose  up  from  among 
the  congregation,  and  took  a  javelin  in  his  hand:  and  he  went  after  the  man  of 
Israel  into  the  tent,  and  thrust  both  of  them  through,  the  man  of  Israel,  and  the 
woman  through  her  belly.  So  the  plague  was  stayed  from  the  children  of  Israel. 
And  those  that  died  in  the  plague  were  twenty  and  four  thousand.  And  the  Lord 
spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Phinehas  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron  the 
ipiiGfit,  hath  turned  my  wrath  away  fi'om  the  children  of  Israel,  Cwhile  he  was 
zealous  for  my  sake  among  them,)  that  I  consumed  not  the  children  of  Israel  in 
my  jealousy.  Wherefore  say.  Behold,  I  give  unto  him  my  covenant  of  peace  : 
and  he  shall  have  it,  and  his  seed  after  him,  even  the  covenant  of  an  everlasting 
priesthood  ;  because  he  was  zealous  for  his  God,  and  made  an  atonement  for  the 
children  of  Israel.  Now  the  name  of  the  Israelite  that  was  slain,  even  that  was 
slain  with  the  Midianitish  woman,  wrs  Zimri,  the  son  of  Salu,  a  prince  of  a  chief 
house  among  the  Simeonites.  And  the  name  of  the  Midianitish  woman  that  was 
slain  was  Cozbi,  the  daughter  of  Zur  :  he  was  head  over  a  people,  and  of  a  chief 
house  in  Midian."  Numb.  25:  1—15. 


THE   ATONEMENT.  125 

It  is  obvious  that  the  atoning  value  of  this  transaction — that  which  recon- 
ciled the  congregation  of  Israel  to  God, — was  the  righteousness  of  Phinehas, 
displayed  in  the  destruction  of  Zimri  and  Cozbi.  God  evidently  regarded 
the  pubhc  exhibition  of  holy  zeal  on  the  part  of  Phinehas,  as  a  redeeming 
leaven,  which  w^ould  diffuse  its  influence  through  the  congregation ;  while  the 
signal  vengeance  that  fell  on  Zimri  and  Cozbi  was  fitted  to  destroy  the  spir- 
itual cause,  and  stay  the  progress,  of  the  moral  infection  which  had  drawn 
wrath  upon  the  congregation.  There  was  good  reason,  therefore,  why  that 
wrath  should  be  withdrawn.  The  atonement  had  virtually  made  an  end  of 
the  evil  against  which  it  was  directed.  But  it  must  be  noticed  that  \kQ  penal 
suffering  in  this  case  was  inflicted  not  on  the  righteous  person  who  made  the 
atonement,  but  on  real  offenders  and  seducers.  Zimri  and  Cozbi  were  the 
vicarious  victims  who  received  the  avenging  stroke,  instead  of  the  whole 
congregation.  Phinehas  was  indeed  the  actor  of  what  may  be  called  a  vica- 
rious righteousness.  His  zeal  was  placed  to  the  account  of  the  people,  be- 
cause it  necessarily  diffused  moral  health  among  them.  But  he  did  not  make 
the  atonement  by  suffering  the  punishment  himself,  which  was  due  to  the 
sin  of  Israel,  but  by  inflicting  it  on  those  who  were  undoubtedly  the  leaders 
in  that  sin.  In  all  this  we  have  a  miniature  of  the  atonement  made  by  Jesus 
Christ.  By  a  glorious  act  of  righteousness  he  destroyed  the  devil,  the  great 
seducer  of  the  world.  Thus  the  cause  of  the  sin  of  the  world  was  put  away, 
and  the  leaven  of  righteousness  introduced  ;  so  that  God  could  safely  with- 
draw his  wrath  and  proclaim  forgiveness  to  man.  But  in  this  atonement,  as 
in  the  other,  the  penal  suffering  due  to  sin  was  inflicted  where  it  was  de- 
served, not  on  the  innocent  champion  of  righteousness,  but  on  the  great  head 
and  representative  of  all  sin.  Christ  did  indeed  suffer  in  the  act  by  which 
he  destroyed  the  devil  and  redeemed  the  worid,  but  his  suffering  was  not 
penal.  The  curse  to  which  he  submitted,  considered  as  punishment,  was 
directed  not  against  him,  but  against  the  devil ;  and  he  submitted  to  it,  not 
as  a  criminal,  but  as  an  executioner.  He  died,  '  that  through  death  he 
might  destroy  him  that  had  the  powder  of  death.'  If  we  suppose  it  necessary 
that  Phinehas  should  have  died  himself,  in  the  act  by  which  he  slew"  Zimri 
and  Cozbi,  we  make  the  case  a  complete  miniature  of  the  great  atonement. 

II.  In  the  folloAving  account  of  the  scape-goat,  we  have  another  illustra- 
tion of  the  destruction  of  the  devil : 

"Aaron  shall  take  two  kids  of  the  goats  for  a  sin.oftering,  .  ,  .  and  he  shall 
cast  lots  upon  the  goats,  one  lot  for  the  Lord,  and  one  lot  for  the  scape-goat. 
And  Aaron  shall  bring  the  goat  on  which  the  Lord's  lot  fell,  and  offer  him  for  a 
sin-offering.  But  the  goat  on  which  the  lot  fell  to  be  the  scape-goat,  shall  be 
presented  alive  before  the  Lord,  to  make  an  atonement  with  him,  and  to  let  him 

go  for  a  scape-goat  into  the  wilderness Then   shall  he  kill  the  goat 

of  the  sin-offering  that  is  for  the  people,  and  bring  his  blood  within  the  vail,  and 
sprinkle  it  upon  the  mercy-seat,  and  before  the  mercy-seat ;  and  he  shall  make 
an  atonement  for  the  holy  place.  .  .  .  And  when  he  hath  made  an  end  of  recon. 
oiling  the  holy  place,  and  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  the  altar,  he 
shall  bring  the  live  goat :  and  Aaron  shall  lay  both  his  hands  upon  the  head  of 
the  live  goat,  and  confess  over  him  all  the  iniquities  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and 
all  their  transgressions  in  all  their  sins,  putting  them  upon  the  head  of  the  goat, 


1^6 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


and  shall  send  him  away  by  the  hand  of  a  fit  man  into  the  wilderness :  and  t1ie 
goat  shall  bear  upon  him  all  their  iniquities  to  a  land  not  inhabited  :  and  he  shaft 

let  go  the  goat  in  the  wilderness And  he  that  let  go  the  goat   for   the 

scape-goat  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  his  flesh  in  water,  and  afterward 
come  into  the  camp,"  Lev.  16:  5 — 26. 

What  does  the  scape-goat  represent  ?  The  popular  commentators,  such 
as  Scott  and  Clarke,  say  without  hesitation,  it  represents  Christ,  bearing 
away  our  sins  into  the  land  of  forgetfulness.  But  many  objections  arise 
against  this  theory.  In  the  first  place,  the  goat  on  which  the  Lord's-  lot  fell^ 
certaiiily  typified  Christ ;  and  the  several  offices  and  destinations  of  the  two 
are  represented  as  so  entirely  diverse,  that  we  caimot  suppose  that  both  typify 
the  same  person.  One  of  them  is  for  the  Lord  ;  the  other  is  for  the  wilder- 
ness. One  is  a  propitiatory  offering,  whose  blood  sanctifies  the  tabernacle-; 
the  other  is  loaded  with  sins,  and  sent  away  as  a  polluted  and  detestable 
object.  And  then  how  revolting  and  false  is  the  idea  that  Christ  was  sent 
into  the  wilderness  of  destruction  with  the  sins  of  the  world  upon  him,  and 
left  there.  If  the  scape-goat  had  been  sent  away  with  the  sins  of  the  people^ 
and  then  brought  back  for  a  holy  offering  to  the  Lord,  it  might  have  repre- 
sented Christ  in  his  death  and  resurrection.  But  it  was  sent  away  never  to 
return  ;— and  Jewish  writers  tell  us  it  was  left  on  the  brow  of  a  precipice^, 
that  it  might  fall  and  perish.  Moreover,  the  man  by  whom  it  w^as  sent  away, 
was  regarded  as  defiled  by  it. 

Azazel  is  the  Hebrew  word  translated  scape-goat.  Gesenius  says  :  "By 
this  name  I  suppose  is  to  be  understood  originally  some  idol,  that  was  ap- 
peased with  sacrifices ;  but  afterward,  as  the  names  of  idols  were  often 
transferred  to  demons,  it  seems  to  denote  an  evil  demon  dwelling  in  the  desert 
"and  to  be  placated  with  victims.  The  name  Azazel  is  also  used  by  the  Arabs 
for  an  evil  demon.  The  ecclesiastical  fathers  have  referred  the  word  to  the 
.goat  itself,  translating  it  scape-goat^  although  obviously  in  Lev.  16:  8,  the 
antithesis  lies  between  'for  Azazel ^^  and '/or  the  Lord.^  "  (See  Ges.  Lexi- 
<Jon,  p.  751.)  This  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  (which  certainly  is 
plausible)  is  altogether  adverse  to  the  idea  that  Christ  is  represented  by  the 
scape-goat.  We  should  much  prefer  to  regard  Christ  as  the  Lord's  victim, 
and  Judas  as  the  devil's. 

The  following  curious  story  is  taken  from  Calmet's  Dictionary,  The  writer 
is  Mr.  Bruce,  an  eastern  traveler : 

"We  found  that,  upon  some  discussion,  the  garrison  and  townsmen  had  been 
■fighting  for  several  days,  in  which  disorders  the  greatest  part  of  the  ammunition 
in  the  town  had  been  expended ;  but  it  had  since  been  agreed  on  by  the  old  men 
*of  both  parties,  that  nobody  had  been  to  blame  on  either  side,  but  the  whole 
wrong  was  the  work  of  a  camel.  A  camel,  therefore,  was  seized,  and  brought 
without  the  town,  and  there  a  number  on  both  sides  having  met,  they  upbraided 
the  camel  with  every  thing  that  had  been  either  said  or  done.  The  camel  had 
killed  men  ;  he  had  threatened  to  set  the  town  on  fire  ;  the  camel  had  threatened 
to  burn  the  aga's  house  and  the  castle  ;  he  had  cursed  the  grand  seignior,  and 
the  sheriff  of  Mecca  ;  (the  sovereigns  of  the  two  parties  ;)  and,  the  only  thing 
the  poor  animal  was  interested  in,  he  had  threatened  to  destroy  the  wheat  that 
was  going  to  Mecca.     After  spending  a  great  part  of  the  afternoon  in  upbraid- 


THE   ATONEMENT.  12T 

ing  the  camel,  whose  measure  of  iniquity,  it  seems,  was  nearly  full,  each  man 
thrust  him  through  with  a  lance,  devoting  him,  diis  manibus  et  diris,  by  a  kind 
of  prayer,  and  with  a  thousand  curses  upon  his  head.  After  which  every  man 
retired,  fully  satisfied  as  to  the  wrongs  he  had  received  from  the  camel !  The 
reader  will  easily  observe  in  this  some  traces  of  the  Azazel,  or  scape-goat  of  the 
Jews,  which  was  turned  out  into  the  wilderness  loaded  with  the  sins  of  the  peo- 
ple. Lev.  16:  21." 

If  this  was  a  ceremony  of  kindred  nature  to  that  of  the  scape-goat  offering, 
(as  Robinson  and  Bruce  both  seem  to  suppose,)  it  is  another  evidence  that 
the  common  opinion  that  Christ  is  the  scape-goat,  is  altogether  inadmissible. 
How  horrible  the  thought  that  men — and  much  more  that  God — should  deal 
with  Christ,  as  those  foolish  barbarians  dealt  with  the  poor  camel !  And  yet 
we  can  make  nothins;  else  of  the  orthodox  atonement.  Such  treatment  how- 
ever,  applied  to  the  devil,  would  be  in  accordance  with  truth  and  justice. — 
The  sins  of  all  men,  when  traced  to  their  source,  are  actually  '  the  works  of 
the  deyir  w^hich  Christ  was  manifested  to  destroy.  .^, 

These  considerations  utterly  preclude  the  idea  that  Christ  is  the  antitype 
of  the  scape-goat,  and  point  us  directly  to  that  other  victim  who  was  destroyed 
forever  when  Christ  died.  The  w^hole  ceremony  was  obviously  designed  to 
shadow  forth  what — as  we  have  seen — the  New  Testament  plainly  teaches, 
that  in  the  atonement,  at  the  same  time  that  Christ  offered  himself  an  accept- 
able sacrifice  to  God,  the  devil,  as  the  father  and  representative  of  all  sin, 
was  devoted  to  eternal  destruction.  ^ 

This  view  enables  us  to  understand  how  the  sins  of  the  Avorld  are  disposed 
of.  Instead  of  being  imputed  by  a  sort  of  legal  fiction  to  Christ,  to  whom 
they  do  not  belong,  they  are  fairly  laid  upon  the  head  of  the  devil  to  whom 
they  do  belong.  '  The  old  serpent  that  deceivetli  the  whole  world'  is  legiti- 
mately made  the  scape-goat  of  the  whole  w^orld.  A  king,  in  dealing  with  a 
revolted  province,  may  properly  make  a  distinction  between  the  guilt  of  the  •' 
common  people,  and  that  of  the  leading  instigators  of  the  rebellion.  When 
he  has  captured  the  ringleader  and  made  a  public  example  of  him,  he  may 
safely  forgive  the  rest — '  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto  them,'  but  to 
their  seducer.  It  is  necessary  that  the  people  should  become  sensible  of  the 
evil  of  the  rebellion,  and  that  they  should  confess  and  renounce  it,  imputing 
their  delusion  to  its  true  author,  and  consenting  to  his  execution.  So  the 
priest  w^as  required  to  put  his  hands  on  the  head  of  the  scape-goat,  and  con- 
fess the  sins  of  the  people  over  him.  And  so  repentance  and  confession, 
with  an  approval  of  the  destruction  of  Satan  as  the  instigator  of  the  sins  of 
the  world,  is  necessary,  in  order  that  men  may  avail  themselves  of  the  atone- 
ment. '  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciKng  the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing 
their  trespasses  unto  them' — because  Christ  by  his  death  destroyed  the  cause 
of  their  trespasses,  and  opened  the  w^ay  for  men  by  repentance  and  faith  to 
separate  themselves  from  that  cause,  and  join  themselves  to  a  nucleus  of 
righteousness. 

^  With  these  views,  we  can  see  how  God  can  '  be  just  and  the  justifier  of 
him  that  bcHeveth ;' — ^how  the  law,  which  immutably  joins  death  to  sin,  can 
be  faithfully  carried  into  execution,  and  yet  man  be  saved.    The  penalty  of 


128  THE  ATONEMENT. 

all  sin  is  actually  inflicted  on  the  devil,  who  is  actually  the  author  of  it. 
Here  is  no  evasion — no  substitution  of  an  innocent  person  for  the  offender. 
The  law  has  its  course.  Man  is  saved,  not  because  God  abrogates  the  law 
or  evades  it  by  a  fiction,  but  because  he  rightfully  imputes  the  sins  of  which 
men  are  the  instruments,  to  the  devil,  as  their  real  author. 

But  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  sins  which  can  thus  be  transferred  to 
the  scape-goat,  are  human,  not  diabolical  sins.  They  are  the  sins  of  the 
seduced — not  of  the  seducer.  It  is  Christ's  office  to  '  have  compassion  on 
those  that  are  ignorant  and  out  of  the  way^  (Heb.  5:  2,)  not  on  wilful 
transgressors.  His  prayer  on  the  cross  was — '  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they 
know  not  what  they  do.''  Luke  23:  34.  Paul  was  forgiven  because  he  per- 
secuted the  church  '  ignorantly^  in  uyihelief.''  1  Tim.  1:  13.  '  If  we  sin 
wilfully  after  that  we  have  received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  remain- 
eth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin.'  Heb.  10:  26.  '  If  any  man  see  his  brother 
sin  a  sin  which  is  not  unto  death,  he  shall  ask,  and  he  shall  give  him  life  for 
them  that  sin  not  unto  death.  There  is  a  sin  unto  death.  I  do  not  say  that 
he  shall  pray  for  it.  All  unrighteousness  is  sin.  And  there  is  a  sin  not  unto 
death.^  1  John  5:  16, 17.  The  broad  difference,  as  we  have  intimated  be- 
fore, between  sins  that  are  properly  diabofical,  and  those  that  are  properly 
human,  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  latter  are  not  original  in  the  transgressor,  but 
are  occasioned  by  external  influences  working  on  ignorance  ;  while  the  former 
are  the  legitimate  products  of  the  transgressor's  own  disposition,  and  are 
committed  in  defiance  of  opposing  knowledge.  Diabolical  sins,  by  their 
very  nature  are  not  transferable.  They  who  commit  them  are  intrinsically 
incorporated  with  the  devil,  and  instead  of  being  saved  by  the  atonement, 
are  destroyed,  with  the  devil. 

If  any  cite  as  objections  to  our  theory  in  regard,  to  the  object  of  Christ's 
death,  such  passages  as  these  :  '  Christ  bare  our  sins  m  his  own  body  on  the 
tree,'  '  gave  himself  for  us,'  '  died  for  us,'  &c.,  we  reply — He  certainly  did 
not  die  in  the  same  sense  as  we  should  have  died,  had  there  been  no  atone- 
ment— that  is  eternally.  He  died  for  us  in  this  sense,  viz  :  he  was  baptized 
into  the  spirit  of  sin  and  death,  and  suffered  temporarily  the  curse  which 
rested  on  that  spirit,  that  he  might  overcome  and  destroy  it,  and  that  he 
might  lay  hold  on  and  redeem  those  that  were  under  it.  If  he  had  not  died, 
we  must  have  been  destroyed  with  the  devil.  His  death,  therefore,  was  a 
substitute  for  ours.  But  it  was  not  as  ours  would  have  been,  Vi  punishment. 
Gen.  Putnam's  sufferings  in  his  descent  into  the  cavern  to  kill  the  wolf,  may 
be  viewed  as  a  forcible,  though  a  homely,  illustration  of  the  nature  and  ob- 
ject of  Christ's  sufferings.  That  notable  passage  in  the  63d  chapter  of  Isaiah, 
where  Christ's  vicarious  sufferings  are  fully  described,  is  quoted  in  Matthew 
8:  17  in  a  way  which  plainly  shows  that  the  evangelist  understood  it  in  a 
spiritual  and  not  in  a  legal  sense.  '  When  the  even  was  come,  they  brought 
unto  him  many  that  were  possessed  with  devils :  and  he  cast  out  the  spirits 
with  his  word,  and  healed  all  that  were  sick :  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which 
was  spoken  by  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying.  Himself  took  our  infirmities  and 
hare  our  sicknesses.^  Here  it  is  evident  that  Christ  suffered  in  the  stead  of 
those  whom  he  healed.    He  entered  into  a  spiritual  partnership  with  them, 


CROSS  OP  CHRIST.  129 

by  which  he  gave  them  his  health  and  took  their  sickness.  But  this  suffering 
certainly  was  not  penal.  It  was  necessary,  not  because  the  law  required  it, 
but  because,  without  it,  he  could  not  enter  into  the  sufferers  and  cast  the 
devil  out.  By  this  hint  of  the  evangelist  we  may  discern  the  true  nature  and 
object  of  all  the  vicarious  sufferings  of  Christ, 

The  sum  of  what  we  have  said  on  the  negative  part  of  the  atonement,  is 
this  :  Jesus  Christ,  by  his  death,  entered  into  the  vitals  of  the  devil,  and 
overcame  him.  He  thus  destroyed  the  central  cause  of  sin.  The  effect  of 
this  act  on  them  that  believe,  is  to  release  them  from  the  power  of  sin  ;  and 
on  them  that  believe  not,  to  consign  them  with  the  devil  to  destruction. 

The  2^ositive  part  of  the  atonement,  i.  e.  the  a^one-ment,  or  reconciliation 
and  spiritual  union  of  God  and  man,  effected  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  will 
be  brought  to  view  in  several  succeeding  articles.     « 


§  19.     THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST. 

*  The  flesh  lusieth  against  the  spirit  and  the  spirit  against  the  flesh,  and 
these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other.'  When  the  flesh  prevails  over  the 
spirit,  as  in  the  experience  described  in  Rom.  T:  7 — 25,  the  spirit  is  in  the 
bonds  of  death.  When  the  spirit  prevails  over  the  flesh,  as  in  the  experience 
described  in  Rom.  8,  the  flesh  is  crucified.  The  two  powers  are  at  deadly 
enmity  with  each  other,  and  whichever  is  strongest  kills  the  other. 

In  Christ  the  spirit  prevailed  over  the  flesh,  from  the  beginning.  His  life 
in  this  world  was  a  series  of  conflicts  between  the  spirit  and  the  flesh,  (or,  in 
another  point  of  view,  between  God  and  the  devil,)  in  which  the  spirit  con- 
stantly overcame  the  flesh.  As  the  struggle  proceeded,  his  spirit  waxed 
stronger  and  stronger.  In  this  way  he  was  educated,  so  to  speak,  for  his 
office,  and  became  perfect  as  a  champion  of  the  tempted.  '  Though  he  were 
a  son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered ;  and  being 
made  perfect,  he  became  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all  them  that 
obey  him.' 

His  last  conflict  in  the  garden  and  on  the  cross,  was  more  severe  and  more 
decisive  than  any  which  preceded  it ;  but  it  was  not  different  in  kind  from 
the  struggles  in  which  he  had  been  engaged  from  his  birth.  The  powers  of 
good  and  evil — the  spirit  with  God  for  its  supporter  on  the  one  side,  and  the 
flesh  with  the  devil  for  its  supporter  on  the  other — which  had  been  warring 
within  him  from  the  beginning,  at  last  came  to  a  desperate  issue.  The  last 
great  act  of  obedience  which  God  required  of  his  spirit,  and  which  the  flesh, 
instigated  by  Satan,  struggled  furiously  to  frustrate,  was  submission  to  death. 
The  spirit  conquered.  Hell  could  not  turn  the  Son  of  God  aside  from  his 
appointed  pathway.  '  Lo  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  0  God,*  was  the  word  of  his 
spirit,  as  he  laid  himself  upon  the  altar. 

In  that  final  sacrifice  the  flesh  was  destroyed,  and  the  devil,  whose  all  was 
16 


180  CROSS   OF   CHKIST. 

staked  on  the  trial,  lost  his  kingdom.  Christ  was  perfected ;  and  thencefortli 
could  bring  to  bear  on  the  devil,  in  all  the  conflicts  of  his  followers,  a  spirit 
on  which  temptation  had  done  its  worst,  and  which  was  thus  triumphantly 
proved  immutable  in  righteousness. 

With  this  vicw^  of  Christ's  work,  we  perceive  that  his  hteral  death  on  the 
cross  was  not  the  whole  of  his  crucifixion,  but  its  consummation.  The  true 
^C7'oss  of  Chrisf  was  the  subjugation  of  his  flesh  by  his  spirit,  and  that  was 
a  process  which  extended  through  liis  whole  life,  though  its  most  notable  act 
and  its  termination  took  place  on  Calvary.  His  spirit  was  mortifying  his  flesh 
in  obedience  to  the  will  of  God,  and  he  was  therefore  '  on  the  cross'  spirit- 
ually, as  realljr  when  he  was  tempted  in  the  wilderness,  and  Avhen  he  was  la- 
boring in  Judea,  as  when  he  hung  between  heaven  and  earth.  Indeed  he 
used  language  referring^o  death  by  crucifixion,  to  express  the  subjugation  of 
the  flesh,  long  before  he  was  actually  crucified.  See  Luke  9:  28,  14:  27. 

We  have  said  that  his  literal  death  was  the  consv7nnmtio7i  of  his  entire 
crucifixion;  but  it  was  something  more.  It  presented  to  the  senses  a  mcst 
appropriate  syml)ol — a  physical  miniatvrc — of  the  whole.  The  ]aialleliFm 
between  the  exhibition  on  Calvary,  and  the  life-long  act  cf  Christ's  crucifix- 
ion, may  be  stated  thus:  As  the  wooden  cross  on  which  he  suflered  Tsas  to 
his  body,  so  was  his  spiritual  nature  to  his  carnal  nature,  during  his  vlcle 
life  in  the  flesh.  The  prominent  idea  of  a  literal  crucifixion,  is  that  of  a  fiim, 
strong,  upright  substance  holding  with  unyielding  rigor  a  living  body,  in 
hopeless  impotence  and  mortal  agony,  till  death  closes  the  scene.  This  is  a 
true  figiu'e  of  the  antagonism  between  Christ's  spirit  and  flesh.  His  spiritual 
nature,  firmly  rooted  in  God,  stood  up  in  the  strength  and  rigor  of  everlast- 
ing righteousness,  and  held  his  carnal  nature,  impotent  and  dying,  till  it  was 
dead.  His  spirit  was  the  cross  on  which  his  fle^h  hung,  not  merely  six  hours, 
but  more  than  thirty  years.  In  the  scene  on  Calvary,  the  self-sacrifice  which 
had  been  acted  within  him  from  the  first,  came  out  before  the  eyes  of  men, 
and  exhibited  itself  in  a  visible  and  awfully  impressive  symbol.  •  The  a  jos- 
tles, instead  of  attempting  to  force  into  the  minds  of  their  readers  by  meta- 
physical discourses,  the  mysteries  of  the  interior  work,  pointed  to  the  sjmbol. 
Their  theme  was — 'Christ  crucified^— 'the  crQs.s  of  Chrht.^  But  whoever 
conceives  of  nothing  but  a  physical  or  legal  transaction  as  embodied  in  these 
words,  sees  opjy  the'  surface  of  the  great  spiritual  idea  which  lies  beneath 
them.  Abundant  evidence  may  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles  that 
they  saw  in  the  '  cross  of  Christ'  the  conflict  and  victory  which  we  have  de- 
Bcribed,  and  that  it  was  in  their  minds  the  seed  of  spiritual  victory  for  all 
believers.  As  the  servants  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whose  ofiice  it  is  to  lead  minds 
from  external  signs  to  interior  truth,  they  used  the  visible  crucifixion  as  the 
entering-point  of  the  vast  idea  which  it  shadowed  forth. 

Probably  the  most  prominent  thought  in  many  minds,  in  relation  to  the 
death  of  Clmst,  is  that  it  was  a  cruel  deed  perpetrated  by  wicked  men.  At 
the  hazard  of  startling  those  whose  conceptions  are  thus  limited,  we  aver, 
that  in  the  truest,  sense  Christ  cnicified  himself^  and  that  the  act  was  a  glo- 
rious manifestation  of  God's  righteousness.  The  Romans,  the  Jews,  and  the 
devil,  were  indeed  the  guilty  instruments  of  the  sacrifice ;  but  the  power 


CIIOSS    OF    CHRIST.  131 

"wMch  ordained  and  directed  it,  was  the  mil  of  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
Christ  said  expressly, ''  No  man  taketh  my  life  from  me  ;  I  lay  it  down  of 
myself.'  He  steadfastly  set  his  face  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  with  the  avowed 
expectation  and  purpose  of  dying  on  the  cross.  Twelve  legions  of  angels 
were  at  his  command  ;  but  he  declined  a  rescue. 

The  substantial  deed  which  was  done  under  the  forms  of  the  ci-ucifixion- 
scene,  was  the  act  of  the  sufferer ;  and  that  act  was  the  destruction  of  the 
will  of  his  flesh  by  the  will  of  his  spirit.  His  spiritual  nature  was  not  the 
crucified,  but  the  crucifier.  '  He  was  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened 
in  the  spirit ;'  and  it  was  the  quickening  of  his  spirit  that  made  him  strong 
enough  to  lay  and  hold  his  flesh  on  thp  altar  of  death.  That  same  quicken- 
ing had  made  him  conqueror  in  all  the  battles  of  his  previous  life.  It  was 
the  holy  power  of  \hQ  divine  nature — the  righteousness  of  God.  While  the 
wooden  cross  held  his  body,  his  spiritual  will  held  his  carnal  will  in  the 
agonies  of  death ;  and  the  unconquerable  strength  of  the  righteousness  of 
God  was  manifested  to  the  uttermost. 

That  same  quickening  power  which  carried  him  triumphantly  through  the 
death-battle,  went  with  him  into  the  grave,  and  so  charged  his  spirit  with 
ascending  life  that  Hades  could  not  hold  him.  By  its  strength,  he  returned 
from  the  dead,  took  possession  of  that  same  body  which  had  been  the  vantage- 
ground  of  the  devil,  changed  it  into  a  spiritual  body,  and  '  ascended  far 
above  all  heavens.' 

We  are  apt  to  separate  the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  his  death,  and  to 
think  of  the  one  as  the  reverse  of  the  other.  But  in  thinking  thus,  we  are 
looking  at  his  body,  rather  than  at  his  spirit,  in  which  the  essence  of  the 
whole  transaction  lay.  In  truth  the  resurrection-power  was  the  high  priest 
of  the  sacriiice  on  Calvary,  as  well  as  the  conqueror  of  Hades.  'Through 
the  eternal  Spirit  he  oflkced  himself  without  spot  unto  God,'  and  through  the 
eternal  Spirit  he  arose  from  the  grave  to  the  highest  heaven.  His  resurrec- 
tion was  but  the  continuation  and  complete  victory  of  that  same  holy  energy 
which"  nailed  his  flesh  to  the  cross,  and  which  had  trodden  the  wine-press  of 
self-sacrifice  in  all  his  previous  life.  The  two  elements  concerned  in  his  vic- 
tory 07er  the  devil,  were  fife  in  the  spirit,  and  death  in  the  flesh.  To  the 
external  senses  the  resurrection  is  the  most  fitting  representative  of  the  life  ; 
and  the  crucifixion,  of  the  death.  But  both  elements  were  present  in  the 
crucifixion  ;  and  life,  though  less  visible  than  its  antagonist,  was  actually  the 
principal  power. 

Hence  Paul,  though  the  point  at  which  he  constantly  aimed,  was  to  plant 
the  en3rg7  of  the  resnrrection  in  believers,  as  the  seed  of  God's  righteous- 
ness, gathered  up  his  whole  gospel  into  one  idea — Hhe  cross  of  Christ.^  '  I 
de remained,'  says  he,  '  to  know  nothing  among  you,  save  Jesus  Christ  and 
him  crucified.'  1  Cor.  2:  2.  It  is  clear  that  his  conception  of  '  Christ  cru- 
cified' was  not  merely  or  principally  that  of  a  suiferer,  but  of  a  conqueror. 
His  eye  was  on  the  mighty  energy  of  righteousness  that  crucified  the  flesh, 
more  than  oinifce  flesh  which  was  crucified.  Accordingly  he  says — '  The 
preaching  of  the  cross  .  .  .  unto  us  which  are  saved  is  the  poiper  of  Grod, 
,  .  .  We  preach  Christ  crucified,  .  .  .  the  power  of  (^oc?  and  3ie  wisdom 


132  BEEAD    OF  LIFE. 

of  God.'  ICor.  1:  18 — 24.  He  set  forth  tlie  dying  scene,  as  an  exhibition 
of  the  power  of  God's  righteousness ;  and  he  expected  that  men,  in  receiving 
'  Christ  crucified,'  would  appropriate  the  victorious  hfe  of  his  spirit,  as  well 
as  the  death  of  his  flesh. 

The  effect  which  Paul  intended  to  produce  in  others  by  preaching  the 
cross,  was  undoubtedly  the  same  that  was  produced  in  himself.  He  indicates 
distinctly  in  the  two  following  passages,  the  power  of  the  cross  as  exhibited 
in  his  own  experience.  1.  '  God  for])id  that  I  should  glory,  save  in  the  cross 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  hy  which  the  world  is  crucified  unto  me,  and  I 
unto  the  ivorldJ'  Gal.  6:  14.  Here  is  the  death  of  the  flesh.  2.  '  I  am 
crucified  with  Christ ;  nevertheless  Hive  ;  yet  not  i,  hut  Christ  liveth  inme^ 
Gal.  2:  19.  Here  is  the  life  of  the  spirit.  In  the  apostle's  mind  the  idea 
of  '  Christ  crucified,'  evidently  infolded  the  idea  of  Christ  living  and  trium- 
phant over  sin  and  death. 


§  20.    THE  BREAD  OF  LIFE. 

"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  he  that  believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life, 
I  am  that  bread  of  life.  Your  fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the  wilderness,  and  are 
dead.  This  is  the  bread  which  cometh  down  from  heaven,  that  a  man  may  eat 
thereof,  and  not  die.  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven.  If 
any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  forever  :  and  the  bread  that  I  will  give 
is  my  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world.  The  Jews  therefore 
strove  among  themselvcfc',  saying.  How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat? 
Then  said  Jesus  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  eat  the  flesh 
of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.  Whoso  eateth 
my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life  ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at 
the  last  day.  For  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed.  He 
that  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him.  A» 
the  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father  ;  so  he  that  eateth  me^ 
even  he  shall  live  by  me.  This  is  that  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven  ; 
not  as  your  fathers  did  eat  manna,  and  are  dead :  he  that  eateth  of  this  bread 
shall  live  for  ever."  John  6:  47 — 58. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  passages  in  the  -whole  Bible,  and  ought 
to  be  well  understood  by  every  disciple  of  the  gospel. 

Roman  Catholics,  Puseyites,  and  in  general  all  the  grosser  formalists  refer 
it  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  thinking  that  they  eat  the  flesh  and  drhik  the  blood 
of  Christ,  and  secure  to  themselves  the  promised  life,  by  partaking  of  bread 
and  wine  duly  consecrated  by  a  legitimate  priest.  But  this  theory  is  ren- 
dered altogether  incredible  by  the  fact  that  the  Lord's.  Supper  was  not  insti- 
tuted at  the  time  when  this  discourse  was  uttered.  In  the  natural  order  of 
Christ's  instruction,  the  6th  of  John,  instead  of  being  a  commentary  on  the 
institution  of  the  eucharist,  is  the  substantial  independent  Hfct,  of  which 
that  institution  is  an  emblematical  illustration. 

Another  class  of  commentators,  who  have  the  credit  of  more  spiritual 


BREAD   OF   LIFE.  133 

views,  (sucli  as  Scofct,  Clarke,  &c.,)  make  Clirist's  death  on  the  cross  the 
main  subject  of  reforenca  m  this  passage.  Their  doctrine  is  that  the  '  flesh 
and  blood'  of  Christ  here  spoken  of,  so  far  as  these  words  refer  to  any  actual 
substance,  mean  the  physical  flesh  and  blood  which  suffered  on  Calvary  ;  and 
that  the  thing  to  be  received  by  believers  is  not  really  this  flesh  and  blood, 
but  the  atonement  made  by  it,  which  is  to  be  eaten  and  drunk  by  appropri- 
ating faith.  But  this  theory  is  nearly  as  incongruous  and  barren  as  that  of 
the  formalists.  Both  make  a  material  object  and  a  physical  transaction  the 
medium  of  eternal  life  ;  for  the  literal  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ's  material  body 
and  the  visible  transaction  of  the  cross,  as  really  belonged  to  the  physical 
world,  as  does  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  eucharist  and  the  act  of  eating  and 
drinking  it.  The  Catholic  theory  makes  the  eating  and  drinking  literal,  and 
mystifies  the  flesh  and  blood  by  a  pretended  transubstantiation  of  the  el- 
ements ;  and  the  Protestant  theory  makes  the  flesh  and  blood  literal,  and 
mystifies  the  eating  and  drinking,  by  converting  it  into  an  act  of  meditation. 
Both  make  Christ's  discourse  in  the  6th  of  John  an  appendage  to  transac- 
tions that  were  future  and  unknown  when  it  was  uttered,  aud  therefore  un- 
inteUigible  by  itself.  We  believe,  and  propose  to  show  that  it  carries  its  own 
explication,  and  relates  to  a  spiritual  transaction,  of  which  both  the  eucha- 
rist and  crucifixion  are  but  exponents. 

First  we  will  endeavor  to  determine  what  is  meant  by  the  '  flesh  and  blood' 
of  Christ,  which  gives  eternal  life. 

Christ  says — '  I  am  the  bread  of  life  ;'  (ver.  35,  48  ;)  *  I  am  the  living 
bread  ;  ...  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,'  &c.  (Yer.  51.)  It  is 
himself  therefore  that  he  refers  to,  when  he  speaks  of  giving  his  flesh  and 
blood  for  food  to  them  that  believe  on  him.  But  his  nature  while  in  the  world 
was  twofold.  As  to  the  interior  of  his  being  he  was  the  Son  of  God  that 
existed  from  eternity  with  the  Father ;  and  at  the  same  time  he  had  a  ma- 
terial  body  which  was  born  of  a  woman.  Which  of  these  parts  of  himself 
does  he  refer  to  in  calling  himself  the  bread  of  life  ?  Most  clearly  the  for- 
mer. He  says  expressly — '  The  bread  of  God  is  he  which  cometii  down 
FROM  HEAVEN ;'  (ver.  33  ;)  and  this  declaration  is  repeated  subsequently 
not  less  than  four  times.  See  ver.  38,  50,  51,  58.  Now  as  Christ's  material 
body  certainly  did  not  come  down  from  heaven ;  and  as  the  '  bread'  or 
'  flesh  and  blood'  which  he  offers  men  as  the  medium  of  eternal  life,  certainly 
did  come  down  from  heaven,  it  is  manifest  that  these  latter  terms  relate  io 
his  interior  pre-existent  nature.  The  idea  that  he  was  speaking  of  himself 
as  a  man,  and  of  his  visible  flesh  and  blood,  was  utterly  excluded  by  the 
repeated  definition  which  he  gave  of  the  terms  he  used.  Yet  some  of  his 
hearers  could  not  or  would  not  understand  him.  '  The  Jews  murmured  at 
him,  because  he  said,  I  am  the  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven.  And 
they  said,  Is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother  we 
know  ?  How  is  it  then  that  he  saith,  I.came  down  from  heaven.'  Yer.  41, 42* 
They  recognized  only  that  part  of  his  nature  which  originated  in  this  worid, 
and  were  therefore  obliged  to  understand  him  as  speaking  of  his  hteral  flesh 
and  blood.  Of  course  they  wondered  at  what  he  said  about  coming  down 
from  heaven,  and  '  stroye  among  themselves,  saying,  How  can  tliis  man 


134  BREAD   OF  LIFE. 

give  US  his  flesh  to  eat?'  Ver.  52.  But  it  was  not  his  fault  that  they  did 
not  perceive  that  he  had  an  internal  divhie  nature,  and  that  this  was  the 
subject  of  his  discourse. 

The  carnal  theories  of  the  Catholics  and  Protestants  above  noticed,  are 
founded  on  this  very  mistake  of  the  Jews.  Having  no  clear  conceptions  of 
the  existence  and  communicabihty  of  the  spiritual  flesh  and  blood  of  the  Son 
of  God,  they  strive  among  themselves  in  their  secret  thoughts,  saying,  'How 
can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  V  and  the  only  answer  which  they  can 
find,  is,  that  he  gives  us  his  flesh  and  blood  (as  one  party  says)  by  a  sort  of 
mystical  proxy  in  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  eucharist ;  or  (as  the  other 
party  says)  by  presenting  his  once  cmcified  flesh  and  blood  to  our  medita- 
tions. 

In  addition  to  the  evidence  concermng  the  nature  of  the  life-giving  flesh 
and  blood  of  Christ  implied  in  his  repeated  declaration  that  it  came  down 
from  heaven,  we  have  at  the  conclusion  of  his  discourGe  a  very  exphcit  an- 
nouncement that  it  was  not  his  material  body,  but  his  spiritual  nature. 
'  Many  of  his  disciples,  when  they  heard  [what  he  said  about  eating  his  flesh 
and  drinking  his  blood,]  said,  this  is  an  hard  saying ;  who  can  hear  it  ? 
When  Jesus  knew  in  himself  that  his  disciples  murmured  at  it,  he  said  unto 
them.  Doth  this  offend  you  ?  What  if  ye  shall  sjm  the  Son  of  man 
ASCEND  UP  WHERE  HE  WAS  BEFORE?'  Vcr.  60,  62.  ^  Their  eye  was  on  his 
humanity  ;  but  he  reminded  them  of  his  pre-existence.  It  is  as  if  he  had 
said — '  I  am  not  speaking  of  that  part  of  my  nature  which  originated  in  this 
world ;  but  of  that  in  which  I  descended  from  heaven,  and  in  which  I  shall 
ascend  there  again.'  Then  he  adds — '  it  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth  ; 
THE  flesh  profiteth  NOTHING.'  Vcr.  63.  He  had  been  proposing  to  them 
his  flesh  and  blood  as  the  bread  of  heaven — that  by  which  they  were  to  be 
quickened  to  eternal  life.  They  thought  of  nothing  but  his  material  flesh 
and  blood,  and  could  not  see  how  that  should  quicken  them.  Therefore, 
that  he  might  leave  them  no  excuse  for  converting  what  he  had  said  into  an 
offending  absurdity,  he  said  to  them  plainly — '  The  quickening  flesh  and 
blood  of  which  I  speak  is  spiritual :  the  [literal]  flesh  profiteth  nothing  ;  that 
is  not  the  bread,  which,  if  a  man  eat,  he  shall  live  forever.'  Yet  the  difii- 
culty  of  apprehending  his  pre-existence,  and  of  conceiving  how  he  could  give 
men  his  spiritual  flesh  and  blood  for  food,  blinded  the  eyes  of  those  who 
murmured;  and  'from  that  time  many  of  his  disciples  went  back,  and 
walked  no  more  with  him.'  Ver.  QQ. 

The  proper  life-giving  body  of  Christ,  then,  is  a  spiritual  substance  of 
which  his  material  body  Avas  but  the  envelope.  In  order  to  ascertain  the 
distinctive  characteristics  of  the  two  elements  of  that  substance,  we  must 
consider  the  distinction  between  flesh  and  blood  in  the  natural  body.  Blood, 
in  the  ordinary  sense,  is  db  fluid,  and  flesh  is  the  solid  which  contains  it. — 
Blood,  says  the  scripture,  '-is  the  Ufe.^  Flesh  is  the  fo7i7i  in  which  life 
subsists.  Now  the  question  is — are  celestial  beings  composed  of  two  elements 
corresponding  to  flesh  and  blood,  as  thus  defined  ?  We  answer, — man  cer- 
tainly has  within  his  visible  body  a  soul  and  a  spirit ;  and  in  a  disembodied 
state  his  soul  is  properly  called  a  spiritual  body ;  it  is  a  concrete  substance ; 


BREAD   OF   LIFE.  135 

it  has  in  all  respects  the  form  of  the  natural  body  ;  it  corresponds  therefore 
to  flesh.  And  the  spirit  is  a  fluid  substance,  contained  in  the  soul ;  it  is  the 
life  of  the  soul ;  it  corresponds  therefore  to  blood.  So  far  as  human  beings 
are  concerned  then  it  is  proper  to  apply  the  terms  flesh  and  blood  to  the  two 
constituents  of  their  spiritual  nature.  If  then  the  spiritual  constitution  of 
man  is  an  index  of  the  constitution  of  superior  spiritual  beings — which  there 
is  no  reason  to  doubt,  since  God  made  man  in  his  own  image, — we  may  safely 
conclude  that  the  Son  of  God,  in  his  pre-existent  state,  had  a  soul  and  a 
spirit,  or  a  spiritual  body  and  a  life  within  it,  which  are  properly  called  flesh 
and  blood.  These  are  the  elements  of  which  tlie  bread  and  wine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  are  the  emblems.  It  was  the  breaking  of  this  body  and  the 
outpouring  of  this  blood  tHat  took  away  the  sin  of  the  world.  Tho  soul  and 
spirit  01  the  SoiTof  God  came  out  from  the  glory  of  the  Father  into  .he  s|  here 
of  fallon  humanity,  put  on  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  su^anitted  to  the  infirm- 
ities, temptations  and  sufferings  of  a  carnal  state,  encountered  the  full  tcrrent 
of  the  wrath  of  the  eternal  murderer,  tasted  through  its  mortal  envelope  the 
bitterness  of  death,  and  sounded  the  dark  abyss  cf  Bad es.  Thus  the  Lamb 
of  God  gave  his  flesh  and  blood  for  the  life  of  the  world.  TliC  trsnsactirn  on 
CaU'ar/  was  one  scene  in  this  great  crucifixion,  and  a  miniature  cxi  orent  of 
the  whole. 

We  next  inquire,  by  .rhat  process  we  are  to  eat  the  flesh  and  drink  the 
blood  of  Christ. 

As  it  is  not  the  material  flesh  and  blood  that  is  to  be  received,  so  it  cannot 
be  the  material  body  that  is  to  eat  and  drink.  The  food  and  that  which 
feeds  upon  it  must  be  homogeneous.  It  is  evident  therefore  that  it  is  our 
soul  and  spirit,  i.  e.  the  flesh  "and  blood  of  our  inner  man,  that  is  to  partake 
of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ.  Accordingly  the  terms  '  eat'  and  '  drink' 
are  repeatedly  explained  in  the  6  th  of  John  by  equivalent  terms  which  denote 
acts  of  the  inner  man.  When  Christ  exhorted  those  who  followed  him,  to 
'labor  for  the  meat  that  endure th  to  eternal  life,'  they  said  to  him,  '  What 
shall  we  ,4o  that  we  might  work  the  works  of  God  ?  Jesus  answered  and 
said  unto  them.  This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath 
sent.'  Ver.  27 — 29.  Thus  it  appears  thafrN^^itt^/is  the  act  which  appro- 
priates the  food  of  eternal  life,  and  the  equivalent  of  the  eating  and  drinking 
spoken  of  afterwards.  This  is  further  evinced  in  the  following  passages. 
'  I  am  the  bread  of  life  ;  he  that  cometh  to  me  shall  never  hunger,  and  he 
that  believeth  on  me  shall  never  thirst.'  Ver.  35.  '  This  is  the  will  of  him 
that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son  and  believeth  on  him,  may 
have  everlasting  life.'  Ver.  40.  '  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  he  that  believeth 
on  me  hath  everlasting  life  ;  I  am  the  bread  of  life.'  Ver.  47,  48.  When 
our  inner  man  comes  to  the  Son,  sees  him  and  believes  on  him,  we  do  the 
thing  meant  by  the  terms  '  eating  his  flesh'  and  '  drinking  his  blood.' 

^  In  exact  actordance  with  this  exposition,  Christ,  in  the  conclusion  of  his 
discourse,  specifies  the  form  in  which  his  flesh  and  blood  is  conveyed  to  those 
who  feed  upon  it.  If  beliejmg  is  eating  and  drinking,  then  since  the  thing 
received  in  the  act  of  believing  is  a  proposition  or  word,  it  follows  that  Christ's 
word  is  the  vehicle  of  his  flesh  and  blood.     And  so  he  explains  himself.    H© 


136  BREAD   OF  LIFiE. 

says — '  It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing  ;  the  words 
that  I  speak  unto  you^  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life  ;'  i.  e.  the  words  that 
I  speak  unto  you,  are  the  food  that  quickens  to  eternal  hfe,  -whieh  I  have 
been  proposing  to  you,  under  the  terms  '  flesh'  and  '  blood.' 

It  is  a  fact  well  known  to  spiritualists,  that  the  word  of  every  spiritual  be- 
ing is  an  actual  substance,  sent  forth  from  his  inw^ard  center,  carrying  with  it 
the  properties  of  his  Hfe.  It  is  also  a  known  fact  that  the  act  of  behe\ing 
actually  receives  into  the  soul  and  spirit,  the  substance  conveyed  in  the  word 
believed.  So  that  communication  by  word  from  one  person  to  another, 
efiects  an  actual  junction  of  sjDiirits,  and  conveys  to  the  receiver  a  portion  of 
the  life  and  character  of  the  communicator.  It  was  with  a  view  to  this  phi- 
losophy and  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  it,  that  Christ  chose  his  language  in 
the  6th  of  John.  He  wished  to  apprise  his  hearers  thoroughly  that  the  inter- 
course with  him  which  he  called  believing  on  him,  was  not  a  mere  solitary 
movement  of  the  believer's  own  mind,  caused  by  hearing  physical  sounds, 
but  a  reception  of  the  efl[luence  of  his  soul  and  spirit  into  the  behever's  soul 
and  spirit.  He  Avould  have  them  understand  that  in  spiritually  receiving  his 
spiritual  word,  they  became  Identified  with  him  as  really  as  a  man  becomes 
identified  with  his  food  in  eating~and  digesting  it. 

We  protest  against  the  idea  that  Christ's  language  in  the  6th  of  John  is 
merely  figurative.  Though  it  is  not  true  in  a  physical  sense  that  believers 
eat  and  drink  the  elements  of  Christ's  body,  it  is  true  iji  a  spiritual  sense, 
and  that  sense  is  as  real  as  the  physical.  The  thing  done  in  eating  and 
drinking,  viz.,  the  reception  of  a  nutritious  substance  into  the  laboratory  of 
life,  is  done  in  imbibing  the  spiritual  elements  of  Christ's  nature  ;  and  the 
sensations  which  attend  the  two  processes  are  not  so  entirely  unlike  as  un- 
spiritual  persons  may  suppose.  Every  one  who  has  had  intercourse  with  the 
Word  of  life,  knows  that  its  entrance  is  felt  not  merely  in  the  mind  by  its 
information,  but  in  the  center  of  life  by  its  power ;  and  that  it  causes  a  sen- 
sation of  strength,  growth,  and  refreshment.  Even  the  place  where  it  takes 
effect  is  coincident  with  the  digestive  organs  of  the  body.  Christ,  speaking 
of  this  very  intercourse,  said  on  a  certain  occasion,  '  If  any  man  thirst,  let 
him  come  unto  me  and  drink.  He  that  belie veth  on  me,  as  the  scripture 
hath  said,  out  of  his  helly  shall  flow  rivers  of  Hving  water  ;'  and  it  is  added, 
'  This  spake  he  of  the  Spirit  which  they  that  believe  on  him  should  receive.' 
John  7:  37 — 39.  The  idea  here  is  not  that  rivers  of  living  water  shall  flow 
from  the  believer  abroad,  but  from  God  into  him,  as  Christ  said  in  another 
place — '  Whosoever  drinketh  of  the  water  that  I  shall  give  him,  shall  never 
thirst ;  but  the  water  that  I  shall  give  him  shall  be  in  him  a  well  of  water ^ 
springing  up  into  everlasting  life.''  John  4:  14.  The  expression — 'out  of 
his  belly'' — indicates  that  the  fountain  of  the  water  of  life  rises  in  the  middle 
region  of  the  spiritual  body ;  and  that  coincides  with  the  place  where  food  is 
elaborated  in  the  natural  body.  ♦ 

Finally,  we  Avill  notice  the  results  of  eating  Christ's  flesh  and  drinking  his 
blood. 

As  food  gives  its  nature  to  the  body  that  receives  it,  so  the  spiritual  flesh 
and  blood  of  Christ,  received  through  his  word,  communicates  its  nature  to 


EKE  AD   OF  LIFE.  137 

the  soul  and  spirit  of  the  believer.  And  as  Christ,  in  his  spiritual  nature,  is 
the  ever-living  Son  of  God,  the  behever,  being  identified  with  him,  becomes 
a  son  of  God  and  partaker  of  the  eternal  life  of  the  Father.  This  is  what 
Christ  declares  in  these  words — '  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my 
blood,  dwelleth  in  me  and  I  in  him.  As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and 
I  hve  by  the  Father;  so  he  that  eateth  me,  even  he  shall  live  by  me.'  Ver. 
56,  57. 

It  is  repeatedly  affirmed  that  partakers  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ 
shall  Hive  forever:  Ver.  50,  51,  58.  See  also  ch.  8:  51,  and  11:  2a.  This 
has  no  primary  reference  to  the  life  of  the  natural  body,  as  is  evident  from 
the  following  considerations  :  1.  The  whole  discourse,  as  we  have  seen,  re- 
lates to  the  spiritual  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ — to  spiritual  eating  and  drinldng 
— and  of  course  to  the  spiritual  part  of  him  who  eats  and  drinks.  It  is  the 
soul  and  spirit  of  man  that  receives  the  effluence  of  the  soul  and  spirit  of 
Christ ;  and  of  course  it  is  that  part  of  his  nature,  and  not  his  natural  body, 
which  is  quickened  to  everlasting  life.  2.  The  death  w^hich  is  set  over 
against  the  life  promised  to  believers,  is  not  the  death  of  the  body,  but  a  death 
existing  while  men  are  in  the  body.  '  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Verily  verily 
I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood, 
ye  ha,ve  no  life  in  you.'  Ver.  53.  So  John  says — 'He  that  hath  the  Son 
hath  life,  and  he  that  hath  not  the  Son  of  God  hath  not  life.  1  John  5:  12. 
The  life  promise^  therefore  is  the  opposite  of  the  death  of  the  inner  man, 
i.  e.  it  is  the  life  of  the  inner  man. 

Christ  had  his  eye  on  the  soul  and  spirit ;  and  regarding  men  in  their  sins 
as  already  dead,  he  offered  them  his  spiritual  flesh  and  blood  as  a  quickening 
ahment,  by  partaking  of  which,  they  might  enter  on  eternal  life  at  once.  As 
in  the  case  of  the  carnal,  death  is  represented  as  already  present,  though 
the  body  is  not  dead,  so  in  the  case  of  believers,  eternal  life  is  represented 
as  already  begun,  though  they  are  still  in  the  w^orld.  '  Whoso  eateth  my 
flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life.'  Ver.  54,  and  47.  The  con- 
ception which  this  discourse  is  designed  to  give  us  is  evidently  this :  Sin- 
ners are  already  dead,  and  evermore  sinking  deeper  in  death.  In  putting  off" 
the  body  they  only  take  one  step  in  their  downward  course.  The  death  of 
the  outer  man  is  but  the  continuation  and  complement  of  the  pre^sdous  death 
of  their  soul  and  spirit.  On  the  other  hand,  believers,  by  partaking  of  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  begin  to  live,  and  their  life  proceeds  onward  forever. 
Ig  is  the  life  of  their  inner  man,  and  is  not  dependent  on  the  continuance 
of  its  physical  envelope.  If  they  put  off"  the  body,  the  change  is  rather  birth 
than  death.  Their  soul  and  spirit  live  as  they  did  before,  by  the  life  of 
Christ,  and  they  enter  a  sphere  more  favorable  to  the  spiritual  body  than  this 
world.     This  is  the  sense  in  which  they  never  die. 

It  must  not  however  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  eternal  life  is  begun  in 
in  them,  thab  they  enter  upon  the  complete  resurrection  at  the  death  of  the 
body.  If  the  mere  presence  of  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul  and  spirit  w^ere  the 
whole  of  the  resurrection,  believers  might  as  well  be  said  to  have  attained  the 
resurrection  before  death  as  afterward ;  whereas  we  know  that  the  primitive 
saints  were  waiting  for  the  glorified  body.  Moreover,  on  that  supposition, 
17  f 


138  B21BAD   OV  LIPB. 

Christ  could  not  have  been  the  subject  of  a  resurrection,  i.  e.  a  rismg  frotti- 
the  dead,  at  all ;  for  he  had  the  life  of  God  in  his  soul  and  spirit  from  the 
beginning,  and  was  never  dead  as  to  the  inner  man,  and  of  course  never  in 
a  condition  to  be  raised  from  the  dead.  Whereas,  we  know  that  he  was  the 
first  subject  of  the  resurrection,  and  a  pattern  of  the  resurrection  of  all  be- 
lievers. It  is  evident  therefore  that  there  is  an  important  distinction  between 
the  initial  attamment  of  eternal  life,  and  the  final  completed  resurrection. 
The  former  is  an  operation  on  the  interior  of  the  person  ;  the  latter,  on  the 
exterior.  The  former  is  consistent  with  a  residence  in  this  world  or  in  Hades. 
The  latter  is  a  rising  out  of  Hades  and  this  world  into  the  immediate  presence 
of  God.  The  former,  in  the  case  of  Christ,  was  the  effect  of  his  permanent, 
and  we  may  say,  constitutional  union  with  the  Father  ;  while  the  latter  was 
WTOught  by  special  exertion  of  the  Father's  mighty  powder  in  bringing  him  up 
from  the  abyss  into  which  he  had  descended.  In  the  case  of  those  who  believe 
on  Christ,  the  former  commences  when  they  see  Christ  spiritually,  and  re- 
ceive his  nature  into  the  inner  man,  and  continues  onward  forever,  though 
they  remain  in  the  body,  or  pass  into  Hades  ;  but  the  latter  commences  when 
they  are  brought  up  from  this  world  and  Hades  into  the  presence  of  Christ' S' 
glorious  body. 

The  distinction  which  we  have  sketched  is  explicitly  and  repeatedly  re- 
cognized in  the  6th  of  John.  Thus  Christ  says,  '  This  is  the  will  of  him 
that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  him,  may 
have  eternal  life  ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. ^  Ver.  40.  Here 
it  is  evident  that  having  eternal  life  is  a  present  attainment,  immediately 
consequent  on  believing ;  but  being  raised  up  at  the  last  day  is  a  future  bles- 
sing, to  be  effected  at  an  appointed  time  and  by  a  special  act  of  Christ.  So, 
in  another  place,  Christ  says,  'Whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood 
hath  eternal  fife  ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.^  Ver.  54.  This 
is  equivalent  to  saying  that  one  who  hath  eternal  life,  nevertheless  is  not  in 
the  final  resurrection,  but  is  to  he  raised  up  at  an  appointed  future  time. 

These  then  are  the  results  of  our  exposition  of  the  6th  of  John,  viz  :• 
1.  The  bread  of  life,  or  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  is  his  interior  divine  nar 
ture,  i.  e.  his  soul  and  spirit,  which  are  properly  called  the  flesh  and  blood 
of  his  spiritual  body.  2.  The  reception  of  this  flesh  and  blood  designated  by 
the  terms  eating  and  drinking^  is  effected  by  the  influx  of  Christ's  soul  and 
spirit  into  the  soul  and  spirit  of  behevers,  through  his  spiritual  word.  3.  The 
results  of  this  junction  are  present  possession  of  interior  eternal  life,  and  se- 
curity of  an  ultimate  resurrection  to  a  glorified  state. 


rwi»n*"»*>r»" 


§  21.    THE  NEW  COVENANT. 

Every  reader  of  the  Bible  must  have  observed  that  two  covenants  are 
frequently  mentioned  and  recognized  therein,  differing  from  each  other  in 
many  important  respects,  and  pertaining  respectively  to  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  dispensations.  The  division  of  the  Bible  into  two  books,  called  the 
^  old  and  new  testaments,^  or  'covenants,^  (for  both  of  these  words  are  uni- 
formly translations  of  ^diatheke,''')  is  a  fact  fitted  perpetually  to  suggest  the 
existence  and  difference  of  the  two  covenants.  For  instances  of  direct  allu- 
sion to  them,  see  Matt.  26:  28,  1  Cor.  11:  25,  Gal.  4:  24,  Heb.  7:  22, 
8:  6—13,  9:  15.  As  we  live  in  the  '  last  time,'  (1  John  2:  18,)  the  period 
subsequent  to  the  coming  of  the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  (Gal.  4:  4,) 
it  well  behooves  us  to  understand  the  nature,  terms  and  privileges  of  that 
covenant,  lest  we  be  found  at  last  in  the  case  of  those  who  '  knew  not  the 
time  of  their  visitation,'  and  perished,  though  the  '  kingdom  of  God  came 
nigh  unto  them.'  This  we  may  do  by  giving  heed  to  the  special  discussion 
of  the  subject,  contained  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  That  book  might 
well  be  entitled,  'A  Comparison  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Dispensations ;' 
or  in  other  words,  '  The  Old  and  New  Covenants.'  In  this  article  we  invite 
attention  especially  to  a  statement  of  the  principles  of  the  new  covenant, 
•contained  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  that  epistle,  viz.: 

"  Now  hath  he  [Christ]  obtained  a  more  excellent  ministry,  by  bow  much  al- 
so he  is  the  mediator  of  a  better  covenant,  which  was  established  upon  better 
•promises ;  for  if  that  first  covenant  had  been  faultless,  then  should  no  place  have 
been  found  for  the  second.  For,  finding  fault  with  them,  he  saith,  Behold  the 
days  come  saith  the  Lord,  when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of 
Israel  and  with  the  house  of  Judah .:  not  according  to  the  covenant  that  1  made 
with  their  fathers,  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt ;  because  they  continued  not  in  my  covenant^  [although  I  was 
an  husband  unto  them.  See  Jeremiah  31:  32,  from  which  the  apostle  quotes,] 
and  I  regarded  them  not,  saith  the  Lord.  For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will 
make  with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord;  I  will  put  my 
laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in  their  hearts ;  and  '  will  be  to  them  a  God, 
and  they  shall  be  to  me  a  people ;  and  they  shall  not  teach  every  man  his  neigh- 
bour, and  every  man  his  brother,  saying,  Know  the  Lord  :  for  all  shall  know  me, 
from  the  least  to  the  greatest.  For  I  will  be  merciful  to  their  unrighteousness, 
and  their  sins  and  their  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more.  In  that  he  saith,  a 
new  covenant,  he  hath  made  the  first  old.  Now  that  which  decayeth  and  wax- 
eth  old,  is  ready  to  vanish  away,"  Heb.  8:  6 — 13. 

in  elucidating  this  passage  we  shall  notice,  1,  the  time;  2,  the  nature; 
3,  the  mode  of  fulfilment  of  the  new  covenant. 

I.  The  time  of  the  dispensation  of  the  new  covenant. 

1.  The  new  covenant  was  not  made  before  the  time  of  Moses;  for  then  the 
new  was  made  before  the  old,  the  second  before  the  first.  '  Behold  the  days 
come,  saith  the  Lord,  when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant,  &c.,  not  according 
to  the  covenant  which  I  made  with  their  fathers,  when  I  took  them  by  the 


140  THE   NEW   COVENANT. 

hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt;  i.  e.  the  time  of  Moses.  '  If 
ih'^it  first  covenant,'  i.  e.  the  one  ministered  by  Moses,  (see  ver.  6,)  '  had 
been  faultless,  then  should  no  place  have  been  sought  for  the  second' 

2.  It  was  not  made  hfore  the  time  of  Jeremiah^  from  whose  prophecy 
,  this  passage  is  quoted  ;  for  then  he  represented  that  as  future  which  was 
past,     '  Behold  the  days  come^  saith  the  Lord,  when  I  will  make  a  new  cov- 
enant,' &c.    '  This  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel 
after  those  days,'  &c. 

These  two  remarks  are  made  for  the  purpose  of  subverting  the  notion  of 
some  who  deny  that  Christianity  is  established  upon  better  promises  than 
preceding  dispensations,  saying  that  the  covenant  now  under  consideration 
was  made  with  Abraham.  This  notion  is  chiefly  founded  on  a  passage  in 
Gal.  3;  8,  &c.  'The  scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  hea- 
then through  faith,  preached  before ,  [or  foretold]  the  gospel  unto  Abraham, 
saying,  [not '  I  will  put  my  law  into  thy  heart,'  but,]  In  thee  shall  all  na- 
tions he  blessed.'.  This  was  only  a  promise  of  the  future  preaching  of  the 
gospel ;  not  a  preaching  of  the  gospel  itself.  If  this  proves  that  the  new 
covenant  was  made  with  Abraham,  we  may  prove,  by  the  same  rule,  that  it 
was  made  -with  the  house  of  Israel,  at  the  time  Jeremiah  said,  '  Behold  the 
days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house 
of  Israel;'  for  in  these  words  he  preached  the  same  gospel  which  was  preach- 
ed to  Abraham,  viz.  a  prediction  of  the  new  covenant.  By  the  same  rule 
also,  we  may  prove  that  every  prediction  in  the  Bible,  of  future  blessings, 
gave  to  those  who  received  them,  present  possession  of  those  blessings.  But 
the  passage  following,  from  the  same  chapter,  ver.  16,  &c.,  is  perhaps  consid- 
ered more  conclusive.  '  Brethren,  I  speak  after  the  manner  of  men ;  though 
it  be  but  a  man's  covenant,  yet,  if  it  be  confirmed,  no  man  disannuUeth  or 
addeth  thereto.  Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made. 
He  saith  not.  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many;  but  as  of  one.  And  to  thy  seed,  which 
is  Christ.  And  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed  before  of 
God  in  Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  can- 
not disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of  none  effect.'  Do  these  words 
declare,  as  some  suppose,  that  the  law  was  given  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  after  the  gospel?  No,  verily;  for  then  as  we  have  seen,  the  new  cov- 
enant was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  older  than  the  old.  We  concede 
that  the  covenant '  was  confirmed  of  God  in  Christ,'  before  the  giving  of  the 
law,  and  before  the  world  began ;  but  it  was  not  confirmed  of  God  in  Abra- 
ham. He  received  only  the  promise  of  the  future  fulfilment  of  the  covenant, 
when  his  seed,  which  was  Christ,  should  come.  Our  present  discussion  re- 
spects not  the  question  when  God  purposed  the  establishment  of  the  new  cov- 
enant, or  when  he  made  the  covenant  with  his  Son,  or  when  he  first  predic- 
ted to  man  its  fulfilment ;  or  whether  he  promised  to  Abraham  that  it  should 
be  fulfilled  in  his  seed  ;  but  when  it  first  took  effect  upon  the  human  race. 
This  is  what  we  mean  when  we  inquire  when  the  new  coven  xnfc  was  madf  ; 
and  this  is  what  Jeremiah  meant  when  he  said, '  Behold  the  day;  come,  saith 
the  Lord,  when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel.'  In 
calling  it  a  new  covenant,  and  representing  it  Sos  future,  he  did  not  intend  to 


THE  NEW  COVENANT.  141 

intimate  that  it  was  new  oy  future  in  the  mind  of  God  or  of  Christ ;  neither 
did  he  intend  to  deny  that  it  was  promised  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  ;  buf  he 
did  intend  to  intimate  that  the  human  race  had  not  yet  received  its  blessings* 
That  Paul  had  no  other  view  of  the  matter  than  that  which  we  have  given, 
is  evident  from  what  he  says  in  several  verses  following  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion ;  for  example,  ver.  19,  '  Wherefore  then  serveth  the  law  ?  It  was  added 
because  of  transgressions,  till  the  seed  should  come^  to  whom  the  promise  teas 
made.^  Ver.  23,  'Before  faith  came  we  Avere  kept  under  the  law,  shut  up 
unto  the  faith  which  should  afterwards  be  revealed.' 

Besides  all  this,  Paul  expressly  declares  in  two  instances  that  Abraham 
had  not  '  received  the  promise  ;'  evidently  meaning  thereby  the  new  cove- 
nant. Heb.  11:  13,  39. 

The  covenant  which  God  made  mth  Abraham  'and  his  seed,''  which  of 
course  was  in  existence  and  force,  when  Jeremiah  predicted  the  new  cove- 
nant, was  not  identical  with  the  new  covenant ;  for  if  it  was,  Jeremiah  falsely 
represented  that  as  future,  which  was  past.  The  covenant  made  with  Abra- 
ham stood  in  the  same  relation  to  the  new  covenant,  as  that  in  which  Abra- 
ham stood  to  Christ.  As  Christ,  '  the  seed  to  whom  the  promise  was  made,' 
was  in  the  loins  of  Abraham,  so  the  new  covenant  was,  if  we  may  use  the 
expression,  seminally  included  in  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham.  Yet 
as  Christ  was  not  born  till  two  thousand  years  after  Abraham,  so  the  new 
covenant  was  not  developed  and  fulfilled  till  two  thousand  years  after  Abra- 
ham's covenant ;  so  that,  if  Jeremiah  could  properly  represent  the  coming  of 
Christ  as  future,  he  could  with  equal  propriety  represent  the  new  covenant 
as  future. 

3.  The  new  covenant  was  made  at  the  coming  of  Christ ;  i.  e.  it  began 
to  take  effect  upon  the  human  race,  when  '  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh.' 
This  is  impUed  in  the  first  words  of  the  passage  under  consideration.  '  Now 
hath  he  [Christ]  obtained  a  more  excellent  ministry,  by  how  much  also  he 
is  the  mediator  of  a  iMer  covenant.''  It  is  also  implied  in  the  comparisouy 
which  occupies  almost  the  whole  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  between  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  dispensations,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  following  examples.  . '  If 
the  word  spoken  by  angels  was  steadfast,  .  .  .  how  shall  we  escape,  if  we 
neglect  so  great  salvation;  which  at  the  first  began  to  he  spoken  hythe  Lordf 
Heb.  2:  2,  3.  '  Being  made  perfect,  he  became  the  author  of  eternal  sal- 
vation to  all  them  that  obey  him.'  5:  9.  '  Christ  being  come,  ...  by  his 
own  blood,  he  entered  once  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  re- 
demption for  us.'  9:  11,  12.  '  Now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world,  hath  he 
appeared  to  put  away  sin.'  9:  26. 

The  tenth  chapter  expressly  designates  the  coming  of  Christ,  as  the  com- 
mencement of  the  dispensation  of  the  new  covenant.  '  When  he  cometh  into 
the  ivorld,  he  saith,  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldst  not,  but  a  body  hast 
thou  prepared  me.  .  .  .  Above  when  he  said.  Sacrifice  and  offering,  &c.  thou 
wouldst  not,  which  are  offered  by  the  law:  then  said  he,  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy 
will,  0  God.  Hetaketh  away  the  first,  that  he  may  establish  the  second.  By 
the  which -will  we  are  sanctified.  .  .  .  Whereof  the  Holy  Ghost  also  is  a  witness 
to  us:  for  after  that  he  had  said.  This  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  them 
after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  hearts ,  and 


14^  THB  NEW   COVENANt. 

i??i  their  minds  will  I  write  them.'*  &c.  Heb.  10:  5 — 17.  Here  Paul  usel? 
'thfe  words  which  predict  the  establishment  of  the  new  covenant,  as  descrip- 
tive of  the  work  which  commenced  when  Christ  came  into  the  world,  and 
substituted  the  sacrifice  of  himself  for  the  sacrifices  of  the  law. 

While  we  assert  that  the  new  covenant  began  to  take  effect  at  the  first 
coming  of  Christ,  we  beUeve  its  principles  and  powers  were  not  fidly  devel- 
oped till  his  second  coming,  at  the  final  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  institution. 
'  He  taketh  away  the  first,  that  he  may  establish  the  second.'  The  second 
was  established  fully,  only  when  the  first  was  wholly  taken  away.  The  tran- 
■sition  period  of  forty  yearsv,  between  the  first  and  second  coming  of  Christ, 
was  a  period  during  which  the  principles  of  the  old  and  new  covenants  were 
blended  together.  As  Judaism  was  gradually  waxing  old,  decaying  and 
vanishing  away,  Christianity  gradually  attained  the  vigor  and  maturity  of 
its  development.  Indeed,  in  one  sense,  Christ  himself  came  gradually-.  He 
who  is  '  the  Avay,  the  tritth,  and  the  life,'  had  not  fully  come,  till  the  canon 
of  scripture  was  closed.  So  that  the  expression  'the  coming  of  Christ,' 
may  properly  be  regarded  as  covering  the  whole  time  between  his  first  and 
second  coming  ;  and  in  this  sense  we  may  say,  without  qualification,  the  new 
covenant  was  made  at  the  coming  of  Christ. 
II.  The  nature  of  the  new  covenant. 

1.  It  secures  salvation  from  sin.  Its  chief  promise  is — ^ I  will  put  my 
laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in  their  hearts.^  Thus  the  whole  law 
becomes  a  promise.  Under  the  old  covenant,  God  said — '  Thou  shalt  love 
•the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,'  or  suffer  damnation.  Under  the  new 
covenant,  he  says — '  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,' 
for  I  have  promised  it  and  will  secure  it.  Grace  takes  the  place  of  legal 
penalty:  statutes  become  promises. 

That  the  new  covenant  is  a  promise  of  perfect  sanctification,  plainly  ap- 
pears from  the  connection  in  which  it  is  spoken  of  in  the  tenth  chapter. 
*  Then  said  he,  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  0  God.  He  taketh  away  the 
■first,  that  he  may  establish  the  second.  By  the  which  will  tve  are  sanctified, 
'&c.  For  by  one  olfering  he  hath  forever  perfected  them  that  are  sanctified. 
Whereof  the  Holy  Ghost  also  is  a  witness  to  us :  for  after  that  he  had  said 
before.  This  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  them  after  those  days, 
•saith  the  Lord;  I  ivill  init  my  laws  into  their  hearts,''  &c.  Heb.  10:  14 — 17. 
-Some  suppose  that  the  sanctification  and  perfection  mentioned  in  this  pas- 
sage, refer  oaly  to  justification  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  Whereas  Paul's 
application  of  the  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost — '  I  will  put  rny  laws  into  their 
hearts' — proves  undeniably  that  he  referred  to  subjective  righteousness,  per- 
sonal sanctification. 

The  contrast  between  the  law,  as  a  dispensation  which  could  not  purge 
the  conscience  or  make  the  subjects  of  it  perfect,  and  the  gospel,  as  bringing 
in  everlasting  righteousness,  is  is  insisted  upon  throughout  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews:  e.  g.,  7:  18,  19,  9:  8—14,  10:  1—22,  11:  39,  40,  &c. ;  as 
also  in  many  other  of  his  epistles :  e.  g.,  Rom.  6:  14,  8:  3,  4,  10:  4, 
.2  Cor.  3:  6 — 9,  (where  the  new  covenant  is  called  '  the  ministration  of 
righteousness,')  Gal.  4:  3 — 5,  &c.     The  office  of  Clirist,  as  the  mediator 


THE  NEW  COVEITANT:  liS- 

of  the  new  covenant,  was  stated  at  his  birth.  '  Thou  shalt  call  his  name 
Jesus,  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins  J  Matt.  1:  21.  We  de- 
clare with  Paul,  '  This  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  worthy  of  all  f),cceptation, 
that  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners.^ 

2.  It  secures  salvation  from  sin  forever.      This  remark,  perhaps,  can 
scarcely  be  distinguished  from  the  former ;    for   salvation   from  sin,  in   the 
proper  signification  of  the  expression,  is  salvation  from  sin  forever.      What- 
ever interrupts  everlasting  holiness,  surely  is  sin  ;  and  he  that  ever  falls  into 
sin,  can  scarely  be  said  to  have  been  saved  from  sin  ;  certrinly  he  was  not 
saved  from  the  worst  of  all  sins,  viz.,  apostasy.     Yet  the  distinction  we  have 
made  is  common.     Many  believe  themselves  wholly  sanctified,  who  yet  have 
no  assurance  of  remaining  so.     We  observe  therefore  on  this  point,  that  the 
contrast  instituted  between  the  new  covenant  and  the  old,  decisively   shows 
tliat  the  former  secures  salvation /orev^r.     '  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the 
Lord,  when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel.      Not  ac- 
cording to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers  when  I  took  them  by 
the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt ;  for  they  continued  not  in 
my  covenant^  (though  I  was  an  husband  unto  them,)  and  I  regarded  them 
not,  saith  the  Lord.'     It  is  plain,  that  the  deficiency  of  the  old   covenant 
w^as  the  fact  that  one  party  continued  not  in  it ;  which  deficiency,  by   the 
terms  of  the  contrast,  w^as  not  to  exist  in  the  new  one.     '  This  is  the  cove- 
nant that  I  will  make  with  them  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord ;  I  will  put 
my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in  their  hearts  ;  and  I   will  be  to 
them  a  God,  and  they  shall  hejo  me  a  people.''     Under  the  first  covenant, 
he  declared  only,  '  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,'  if  they  will  be  to  me  a  people. 
They  sinned  against  him,  and  the  covenant  became  unprofitable.     Under 
the  second  covenant,  he  engages  for  the  faithfulness  of  both  parties.     ^  I  will 
be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall  he  to  me  a  people ^^  for  '  I  will  write  my 
laws  in  their  hearts.'     In  the  first  case,  God  was  a  faithful  husband,  but  the 
house  of  Israel  was  an  unfaithful  bride.     In  the  second  case,  God  not  only 
promises  to  be  a  faithful  husband,  but  engages  to  secure  the  fidelity  of  his 
bride.     In  other  w^ords,  the  new  covenant  is  one  in  which  God   secures  the 
fulfilment  of  its  requisitions  on  both  sides.     This  idea  is  evidently  alluded  to 
in  that  puzzling  passage  in  Gal.  3:  20 — '  ISTow  a  mediator  is  not  a  mediator 
of  one  ;  but  God  is  one.'     Having  characterized  the  Jewish  dispensation  as 
one  given  by  the  ministration  of  angels,  '  in  the  hands  of  a  mediator ^^  he 
takes  occasion  to  show  its  inferiority,  by  contrast  with  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation, in  this  respect.     The  fact  that  there  was  a  mediator  under  the  law, 
showed  the  separation  that  existed  between  God  and  man.     ^A  mediator  is 
not  a  mediator  of  one."*     Whereas  through  Christ,  under  the  gospel,  God  and 
man  are  identified.     The  two  parties  of  the  former  covenant  flow  together 
and  become  one  in  the  mediator;  so  that  he  is  no  longer  properly  a  mediator. 
God,  and  Christ,  and  man,  are  not  three,  but  one ;  for  the  divine  nature 
dwells  in  all,  and  '  God  is  one.'     In  fact,  there  is  but  one  party  to  the  new 
covenant ;  so  that  it  might  properly  be  called  an  unconditional  promise. — • 
For  confirmation  of  the  point  under  consideration,  we  refer  again  to  the 
mention  of  the  new  covenant  in  the  tenth  chapter.    *  By  one  offering,  he 


144  THE   NEW   COVENANT. 

hath  perfected,  forever^  them  that  are  sanctified :  whereof  the  Holy  Ghost 
also  is  a  witness  to  us/  &c.,  in  the  words  of  the  new  covenant. 

But  it  is  objected,  that  a  covenant  such  as  we  exhibit,  is  inconsistent  with 
the  free  agency  of  man.  Most  of  those  who  make  this  objection,  believe 
the  common  doctrine  of  the  *  perseverance  of  the  saints,'  and  pray  for  sanc- 
tification  by  the  poAver  of  God.  Such  are  forever  barred  from  a  hearing  of 
their  objection  ;  for  it  is  inconsistent  with  their  own  principles.  All  believe 
that  the  hoHness  of  saints  in  heaven  is  eternally  secure  ;  all,  therefore,  admit 
the  consistency  of  the  principle  of  the  new  covenant,  with  the  free  agency 
of  man. 

3.  The  new  covenant  gives  liberty  from  external  law.  This  also  is  im- 
plied in  the  contrast  presented  between  the  old  and  the  new  dispensation. 
The  new  covenant  is  'not  according  to  the  covenant'  made  with  the  house  of 
Israel  by  the  mediation  of  Moses.  Under  the  latter,  the  law  was  written  on 
tables  of  stone.  Under  the  former,  it  is  written  in  the  heart.  '  I  will  put 
my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in  their  hearts.'  And  by  this  dif- 
ference of  administration,  we  may  account  for  the  difference  of  the  promised 
success  of  the  two  systems.  External  law  of  necessity  supposes  internal 
depravity.  '  The  law  was  not  made  for  a  righteous  man,  butTor  the  lawless, 
and  disobedient.'  1  Tim.  1:  9.  Who  ever  heard  of  a  law  that  men  shall 
eat  or  sleep  ?  Such  a  law  would  be  ridiculous,  simply  because  all  men  are 
sufficiently  disposed  to  eat  and  sleep.  So  ^  men  were  sufficiently  disposed 
to  love  God  with  the  w^hole  heart,  a  law  requiring  them  to  do  so  would  be 
equally  ridiculous.  Tl^is  disposition  God  promises,  by  the  new  covenant,  to 
secure  ;  and  his  promise  abohshes  his  statute.  But  under  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation, by  reason  of  the  deficiency  of  this  disposition,  the  statute  was 
necessary,  in  order  to  secure  at  least  external  obedience.  '  It  was  a  school- 
master unto  Christ.'  Gal.  3:  24.  (See'ffie'briginal.)  While  the  law  secured 
to  some  extent  external  obedience,  it  still  by  no  means  disposed  the  heart  to 
the  love  of  God.  It  could  not  give  righteousness  :  on  the  contrary,  it  aggra- 
vated the  guilt  of  its  subjects.  *  The  law  entered  that  the  offense  might 
abound.'  Rom.  5:  20.  '  The  law  worketh  wrath.'  Rom.  4:  15.  So  that  the 
nature  of  the  old  covenant  shows  us  why  '  they  continued  not  in  it ;'  as  also 
the  nature  of  the  new  covenant  shows  us  why  it  produces  a  better  result. 
The  first  operates  on  the  understanding ;  the  second,  on  the  disposition  or 
nature  of  man.  The  first  attempts  to  check  the  leprosy  of  sin,  by'^exteiiial 
medication  ;  the  second  pnrgcs  the  blood,  and  by  pm'ging  the  blood  removes 
the  necessity  or  propriety  of  external  medication.  Under  the  old  covenant, 
God  said — '  Do  according  to  all  I  command  you,  and  ^^e  shall  live.'  Under 
the  new  covenant,  where  its  powers  are  fully  developed,  he  may  safely  say — 

*  Do  as  you  please  ;  for  I  promise  that  your  pleasure  shall  be^  mine.  I  will 
write  my  law  upon  your  hqarts.'  Thus  perfect  liberty  is  one  "essential  el- 
ement of  the  new  covenant.  For  further  discussion  of  this  point,  see  Rom. 
6:  14,  7:  1—25,  the  whole  epistle  to  the  Galatians,    1  Tim.  1:  5— 17,  &c. 

4.  The  new  covenant  sets  its  subjects  above  the  necessity  of  ma7i's  teaching. 

*  They  shall  not  teach  every  man  his  neighbor,  and  every  man  his  brother, 
saying,  Know  the  Lord :  for  they  all  shall  know  me,  from  the  least  of  them 


THE  NEW  COVENANT.  145 

to  t"he  greatest.'  The  difference  between  the  old  and  new  covenants,  in  this 
respect,  is  essentially  the  same  as  in  the  point  last  discussed.  Outward  is 
exchanged  for  inward  operation.  Under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  in  respect 
to  instruction,  Moses  was  the  principal  mediator  between  God  and  man. 
He,  with  a  few  others  in  succeeding  ages,  were  permitted  to  draw  nigh  to 
<jrod,  and  receive  by  personal  communication  with  him,  instruction  and  com- 
mandments. But  the  mass  of  the  people  could  not  be  said  to  '  hnow  the 
Lord.'  They  heard  from  him  by  their  teachers,  but  they  w^ere  not  person- 
ally acquainted  with  him.  Moses,  groaning  under  the  burden  of  his  office, 
longed  for  a  system  of  universal  personal  instruction  from  the  Lord.  'Would 
God,'  says  he,  '  that  all  the  Lord's  people  were  prophets,  and  that  the  Lord 
would  put  his  spirit  upon  them.'  Num.  11:  29.  The  new  covenant  gives 
the  blessing  he  desired.  There  is  now  but  '  one  mediator  between  God  and 
man,  even  Jesus  Christ ;'  and  he  not  a  mediator  in  such  a  sense  as  implies 
separation  between  the  parties,  but  one  in  tvhom  the  parties  meet  and  ai-e  . 
one.  So  that  all  the  Lord's  people  are  prophets — all  know  the  Lord.  '  Ye 
have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all  things.  Ye  need  not 
that  any  man  teach  you.'  1  John  2:  20.  27.  '  There  hath  not  been  born  of 
women  a  greater  than  John  the  Baptist ;  notwithstanding,  he  that  is  least  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven — [the  dispensation  of  the  new  covenant] — is  greater 
than  he.'  Matt.  11:  11.  Every  subject  of  the  new  covenant  walks  in  a  sure 
pathway  of  truth,  and  shall  stand,  though  he  be  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
God,  where  John  the  Baptist  would  have  fallen :  he  shall  stand,  though 
every  inhabitant  of  the  earth  and  hell  call  him  a  fool  and  a  madman,  and 
work  and  watch  for  his  dovmfall.  God  must  be  overcome,  before  he  can  bo 
hurtfully  ensnared.  Compare  with  the  doctrine  here  delivered,  John  14: 
16—27,  16:  7—15,  Rom.  15:  14,  1  Cor.  2:  15,  2  Cor.  3:  18,  Col.  2: 
8—10. 

III.  The  mode  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  new  covenant. 

We  have  already,  to  some  extent,  incidentally  discussed  this  part  of  our 
subject ;  but  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  it  more  directly,  we  observe, 

1.  Christ  is  the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant.  By  him  we  are  saved 
from  sin — by  him  we  are  secured  in  holiness — by  him  we  are  m3ide  free  from 
the  latv — by  him  we  have  access  to  God  :  so  that  we  need  not  that  any  man 
teach  us. 

2.  More  specifically,  the  new  covenant  is  fulfilled  in  believers  hi/ the  blood 
of  Christ.  This  is  evident  from  the  following  passages :  '  If  the  blood  of 
bulls  and  goats,  &c.,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more 
shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who,  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  liimself 
without  spoTunto  Gfod,  pujge  your  conscience  from  dead  works,  to  serve  the 
living  God:  2biiidi for  this  cause  he  is  the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant.' 
Heb.  9:  14,  15.  In  the  tenth  chapter,  having  stated  the  principles  and 
introduction  of  the  new  covenant,  the  apostle  proceeds  thus :  '  Having  there- 
fore, brethren,  boldness  to  enter  the  holiest  b^  the  blood  of  Jesus,  by  a  new 
and  living  way,  .  .  .  let  us  draw  near,' &c.  10:19 — 22.  Again;  '  Ye  are 
come  ....  to  Jesus,  the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  and  to  the  blood  of 
sprinJcUng,  that  speaketh  better  things  than  that  of  AbeL'  12;  22 — 24. 

18 


146  THH  ]!TEW  COVENANT. 

Again ;  *  Now  the  God  of  peace,  that  brought  again  from  the  dead  our  Lord 
Jesus,  that  great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep,  through  the  hlood  of  the  everlaS' 
ting  covenant^  make  you  perfect,'  &c.  13:  20,  21. 

That  we  may  have  a  more  complete  view  of  the  testimony  of  scripture  on 
this  subject,  we  quote  several  other  passages,  less  explicitly  referring  to  the 
new  covenant,  but  of  a  similar  character.  '  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the 
Son  of  man,  and  drink  Ms  hlood,  he  have  no  life  in  you :  whoso  eateth  my 
flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life.'  John^:  53,  64.  'In  Christ 
Jesus,  3^e  who  sometimes  were  afar  off,  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ/ 
Eph.  2:  13.  '  Ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things,  as  silver  and 
gold,  from  your  vain  conversation  received  from  your  fathers,  but  with  the 
precious  blood  of  Christ,^  IPet.  1:  18,  19.  'The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin,'  1  John  1:  7.  '  Unto  him  that  washed  us 
from  our  sins  in  his  own  hlood,  ...  be  glory,'  &c.  Rev.  1:  5.  '  Thou  w^ast 
slain,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood.''  Rev,  5:  9.  '  They  over- 
came him  by  the  blood  of  the  Lamh^  &c.  Rev.  12:  11. 

In  these  passages  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  is  represented  as  having  pow- 
er to  '  purge  the  conscience  ;'  to  give  access  to  '  the  holiest ;'  to  '  sanctify ;' 
to  give  '  eternal  life ;'  to  '  bring  nigh'  unto  God ";  to  '  redeem  from  sin ;'  to 
*cleanse  from  all  sin  ;'  to  ^  wash  from  sm  ;'  to  'overcome'  Satan.  The  most 
careless  observer  may  perceive  that  all  this  cannot  be  true  of  the  mere  blood 
of  a  human  body,  however  applied  ;  much  less  of  human  blood  merely  shed 
on  a  cross,  operating  as  an  expiation  of  past  transgression.  How  such  blood 
thus  applied,  can  cleanse  men  from  all  sin,  and  bring  them  nigh  unto  God, 
"We  venture  to  say,  nobody  can  tell.  The  nature  of  the  case  demands  that 
we  seek  some  other  signification  of  the  w^ord  '  blood'  in  these  passages,  and 
some  other  mode  of  its  application.  We  recur,  then,  to  the  definition  of  'blood'' 
which  God  has  given  with  great  particularity,  in  Gen.  9:  4,  Lev.  17: 11 — 14, 
Deut.  12:  23.  'Blood  is  the  life,'  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  then,  is  tho 
life  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ  is  not  the  blood  of  his  hu- 
man body.  He  had  fife  of  infinitely  higher  value  than  his  life  in  the  flesh, 
before  he  became  incarnate.  Manifestly,  the  supposition  that  the  blood  of 
his  human  body  was  his  Ufe,  would  be  a  denial  of  his  pre-existence  and  his 
superhuman  nature.  '  Every  spirit  that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
in  the  flesh,  is  o£  God.'  1  John  3:  2.  Such  a  confession  necessarily  recog- 
nizes the  existence  of  Jesus  Christ  before  he  came  in  the  flesh  ;  but  if  tho 
blood  of  the  flesh  in  which  he  came  is  regarded  as  in  a  predominant  sense 
*  the  blood  [i.  e.  the  life]  of  Jesus  Christ,'  his  pre-existing  superhuman  life 
is  overlooked.  In  order  to  ascertain  what  is  meant  in  scripture  by  the  '■blood 
of  Jesus  Christ'  we  must  bear  in  mind  what  the  scripture  teaches  concern- 
ing his  nature.  Varying  a  little  the  words  of  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  15:  89,  &c.,. 
we  argue  thus  :  All  blood  is  not  the  same  blood  ;  but  there  is  one  kind  of 
blood  of  men,  another  blood  of  beasts,  another  of  fishes,  another  of  birds : 
so  of  the  different  orders  of  behigs  above,  as  well  as  below  man ;  for  there 
are  celestial,  as  well  as  terrestrial  bodies.'  If  we  wish  then  to  ascertain  what 
kind  of  blood  belongs  to  any  of  these  orders  of  beings,  we  inquire  what  is 
the  nature  of  the  being  ?    If  we  wish  to  ascertain  what  is  the  blood  of  Jesus 


THB  NE^t  CO  YEN  ANT.  147 

Ohrist,  we  inquire  what  is  his  nature — is  it  terrestrial  or  celestial  ?  If  he  is 
a  man,  then  his  blood  is  human  ;  if  he  is  superhuman,  then  his  blood  is  su- 
perhuman ;  if  he  is  the  Son  of  God,  his  blood  is  the  Spirit  of  the  living  God. 
However  strange  this  language  and  reasoning  may  appear,  it  is  abundantly 
authorized  bj  the  language  and  reasoning  of  Jesus  himself.  In  John  6:  51, 
he  says,  '  I  am  the  living  bread  that  came  down  from  heaven.  If  any  man 
eat  of  this  bread  he  shall  live  forever ;  and  the  bread  w^hich  I  will  give  is  my 
.fiesh,^  &c.  It  is  manifest  then  that  his  flesh  came  doivri  from  heaven^  and 
was  not  that  human  body  which  was  born  of  the  virgin  Mary.  Although 
thrice^  in  immediate  connection  with  this  passage,  he  virtually  declared  that 
his  flesh  and  blood  came  down  from  heaven,  the  Jews  supposed  that  he  re- 
ferred to  his  human  flesh  and  blood,  when  he  said  '  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh 
and  drink  the  blood,  of  thxi  Son  of  man,  ye  have  no  life  in  you ;'  and  were 
greatly  offended.  He  therefore  explained  himself  more  fully,  ver.  61 — 63. 
*  Doth  this  offend  you  ?  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  up 
wiiere  he  was  before  ?  [As  if  he  had  said,  you  must  bear  in  mind  my  pre- 
existence,  if  you  would  understand  my  language.]  It  is  the  spirit  [my  su- 
perhuman nature]  that  qu'ckeneth  ;  [and  this  is  what  I  mean  when  I  say, 
Whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life ;]  the  flesh, 
[my  human  nature,]  profiteth  nothing.'  Here  then,  we  have  Christ's  own 
•definition  of  the  expression,  Hhe  hlood  of  ChristJ  It  is  the  life  of  that 
sui^erhuinan  nature  ivhich  he  had  hcfore  his  incarnation  ;  and  in  connection 
with  this  definition,  he  declares  what  that  life  was  ; — 'J  live  hy  the  Father.^ 
The  Spirit,  then,  of  the  Father,  or  in  other  words,  the  Holy^Ghost,  was  the 
life,  and  therefore  the  hlood  of  Jesus  CJmst.  (For  cases  of  parallel  and  il- 
lustrative phraseology,  w^e  refer  to  John  T:  37 — 39,  where  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  called  '  living  water,'  i.  e.  blood ;  and  1  Cor.  l2:  13,  where  believers 
■are  represented  as  'drhihing  into  one  spirit.')  It  is  manifest  that  they  who 
regard  the  human  blood  that  followed  the  spear  on  Calvary,  as  Hhe  hlood  of 
Christ ^^  deny  his  superhuman  nature,  and  degrade  the  Spirit  of  the  hving 
God  into  an  animal  fluid.  Who,  more  than  they,  '  tread  under  foot  the  Son 
of  God,  and  count  the  hlood  of  tlie  covenant  .  ,  ,  an  unholy  thing^f  Heb. 
10:  20. 

Having  then  corrected  our  conceptions  of  the  nature  of  '  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ,'  we  proceed  to  inquire  how  it  is  applied,  Christ  says,  '  Except 
ye  eat  my  flesh  and  drink  my  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.'  Whatever  we 
eat  and  drink  becomes  a  part  of  our  nature,  God  forbade  Noah  and  the 
Jews  to  drink  the  blood  of  animals,  '  which  is  their  life,'  doubtless  because, 
in  so  doing,  they  would  receive  the  nature  of  the  animals,  and  degrade  their 
own.  The  blood  of  the  bulls  and  goats  which  w^ere  sacrificed  by  the  law, 
was  not  drank,  but  sprinkled  upon  the  people,  that  it  might  at  least  imper- 
fectly shadow  forth  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus,  i.  e.  the  effusion  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  But  that  which  w^as  forbidden  in  relation  to  the  inferior 
animals  which  were  used  as  types,  was  required  in  relation  to  the  superhuman 
Son  of  God,  the  typified  victim.  The  virtue  of  his  sacrifice  must  be  re- 
ceived by  drinking  his  hlood,  and  thus  partaking  of  his  nature.  '  He  that 
eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  divelleth  in  we,  and  I  in  him.    As 


148  THE  NEW   COVENANT, 

the  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father ;  so  he  that  eateth  me, 
even  he  shall  live  by  me.'  It  is  plain  that  the  act  of  faith,  the  operation  of 
God,  by  which  we  receive  Jesus  Christ,  is  described  by  the  expressions 
'eating  flesh'  and  '  drinking  blood,'  in  order  to  convey  the  idea  that  we  there- 
by come  into  a  living  union  with  him,  and  partake  of  his  nature.  His  blood 
becomes  our  blood — his  life  our  life.  Christ  endeavored  to  make  this  idea 
permanent  and  prominent  by  the  institution  of  the  sacramental  supper,  the 
initiatory  symbol  of  the  new  covenant.  Paul  thus  describes  the  institution 
of  that  ordinance  :  '  The  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which  he  was  be- 
trayed, took  bread  ;  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said, 
Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you :  this  do  in  remembrance 
of  me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup  when  he  had  supped, 
saying,  this  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood  :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as 
ye  drij^k  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.'  As  Christ  had  before  explained  to  his 
disciples  what  he  meant  by  '  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood,'  in  John 
6:  63,  as  we  have  seen  above,  he  designed,  without  controversy,  to  make  the 
sacramental  supper  a  symbol  of  the  transaction  by  which  believers  become 
one  with  liim.  The  wine  of  the  eucharist  is  a  type  of  the  life-blood  of  the 
superhuman  Son  of  God,  by  which  the  new  covenant  is  fulfilled.  Believers 
*  have  been  baptized  into  one  body,  and  have  all  been  made  to  drink  into  that 
one  Spirit.'  Thus  they  have  eaten  the  flesh  and  drunk  the  blood  of  the  Son 
of  man.  Thus  they  receive  the  substance,  of  which  the  sacramental  supper 
was  a  shadovf .  '  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion 
of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?'  1  Cor.  10:  16.  '  Do  we  not  profess  to  drink  the 
blood  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  thus  have  communion  with  him  V 

It  will  be  seen  that  these  views  are  opposed  to  the  notions  of  those  who 
regard  the  expiatory  ofiering  of  the  human  body  of  Christ  as  the  substance 
shadowed  forth  by  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  and  by  the  Lord's  supper.  Such 
persons,  regarding  themselves  as  justified,  but  not  sanctified  by  the  sacrifice 
of  Chiist,  make  the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant  the  seal  of  their  license 
to  sin.  By  '  looking  to  Calvary,'  their  faith  receives  forgiveness,  while  they 
continue  in  sin.  Tliis  is  not  '-eating  the  flesh  and  drinking  the  blood  of  the 
Son  of  man.'  It  will  be  seen,  also,  that  these  vievrs,  and  these  only,  furnish 
a  satisfactory  explanation  of  those  passages  touching  tlie  efficacy  of  the  blood 
of  Christ,  "with  which  the  New  Testament  abounds ;  some  of  which  were 
quoted  at  the  commencement  of  this  discussion  of  that  subject.  Moreover 
they  greatly  help  us  to  understand  the  meaning  of  those  passages  which  rep- 
resent the  church  as  the  body  of  Christ:  e.  g.,  1  Cor.  6:  15,  12: 12,  Eph. 
1:  23,  4:  4—16,  5:  23—32,  Col.  2:  2—19,  &c.  The  body  of  Christ  is 
filled  .with  his  own  blood.  By  becoming  a  member  of  the  true  church,  then, 
we  receive  the  life-blood  of  Christ ;  and  '  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth 
from  all  sin.'  Thus  is  fulfilled  the  promise  of  God  concerning  the  latter 
days.  '  Judah  shall  dwell  forever,  and  Jerusalem  from  generation  to  gene- 
ration. For  I  will  cleanse  their  blood  that  I  liave  not  cleansed:  for  the 
Lord  dwelleth  in  Zion.'  Joel  3:  20:  21. 

Thus  we  conclude,  as  the  sum  of  all  that  has  been  said,  that  the  new 
covenant  commenced  its  operation  upon  the  human  race  at  the  coming  of 


SALVATION  FROM  SIN.  149 

Christ;  that  its  fulfilment  gives  perfect  holiness,  perfect  security  of  holiness j 
perfect  liberty,  and  perfect  independence  of  human  iyistruction  ;  that  it  is 
fulfilled  in  believers  by  the  energy  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  the  spirit  of  the 
living  God. 

We  by  no  means  say,  that  none  but  those  who  have  received  all  the 
blessings  of  this  covenant,  are  in  any  sense  Christians.  The  disciples  were 
called  Christians  first  in  Antioch,  (Acts  11:  26,)  long  before  the  gospel  of 
the  new  covenant  was  fully  developed.  (See  the  concluding  remark  under 
our  first  head — 'the  time/  &c.)  Men  are  called  Christians  in  our  day, 
because  they  '  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ;'  because  they  have 
experienced  '  conviction  and  conversion,'  and  make  an  outward  profession  of 
religion  ;  nay,  even  because  they  live  within  the  bounds  of  Christendom. 
We  grant  also,  if  any  have  received  any  one  of  the  blessings  of  the  new 
covenant,  so  far  they  are  Christians,  in  the  sense  that  looks  at  character 
and  not  profession.  Many  profess  to  have  received  that  blood  which  '  clean- 
seth  from  all  sin,'  without  the  promise  of  security.  If  their  hearts  are  pure, 
so  far  they  are  not  under  the  old  covenant ;  for  that  could  not  purge  the 
conscience.  Many  others  profess  to  be  free  from  the  law,  and  not  free  from 
sin.  So  far  as  their  profession  is  intelligent  and  sincere,  they  are  not  under 
the  old  covenant ;  for  that  gave  no  liberty.  In  short  we  have  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  there  are,  and  have  been,  many,  in  all  ages  since  the  coming  of 
Christ,  who  in  one  respect  or  another  have  had  '  the  testimony  of  Jesus,' 
the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant;  yet  we  do  say  none  are,  or  have  been, 
Christians,  in  the  sense  in  which  Paul  was,  (if  his  state  corresponded  to  his 
preaching,)  who  have  not  received  perfect  holiness,  perfect  security, 

PERFECT  liberty,  AND  PERFECT  INDEPENDENCE,  BY  THE  BLOOD  OF  ChrIST. 


§  22.     SALVATION  FKOM  SIN. 

I.  Holiness  the  principal  object  of  the  atonement. 

'It  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  worthy  of  aU  acceptation,  that  Jesus  Christ 
came  uito  the  world  to  save  sinners,''  From  what  does  he  propose  to  save 
them  ?     We  will  answer  this  question  by  a  few  plain  texts  of  scripture. 

On  the  first  page  of  the  New  Testament  it  is  written,  '  She  [i.  e.  Mary"] 
shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  thou  shalt  call  his  name  JESUS,  [i.  e.  Savior] 
for  he  shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins.'  Matt.  1:  21.  '  What  the  law 
could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God,  sending  his  own 
Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh ; 
that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us.^  Kom.  8:  3,  4. 
'  Christ  loved  the  church,  rnd  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify 
and  cleanse  it.^  Eph.  5:  25,  26.  '  You,  that  were  sometime  ahenated,  and 
euemies  in  your  mind  by  wicked  works,  yet  now  hath  he  reconciled,  in  the 


150  SALVATION  FROM  SIN. 

body  of  his  flesh  through  death,  to  present  you  holy^  and  unhlamahle,  and 
nnreprovahle,  in  Jus  siyht.^  Col.  1:  21,  22.  'Who  gave  hhnself  for  us, 
thai  he  might  redeem  usfroin  all  iniquity.^  Titus  2:  14.  These  texts  ex- 
pUcitly  declare  the  object  of  the, mission  and  sacrifice  of  Christ  to  be  the 
salvation  of  his  people — not  merely  or  primarily  from  the  consequences  of 
their  sins — but  from  their  sins  themselves. 

Dividing  salvation  into  two  great  parts,  viz.,  forgiveness  of  past  sin,  and 
purification  from  present  sin,  it  is  plainly  implied  in  nearly  all  the  declarations 
of  the  Bible  touching  the  subject,  that  the  latter  part  is  the  primary^  and 
the  former  the  secondary  object  of  the  work  of  Christ.  This  appears  in  the 
above  quotations.  Purification  was  so  much  more  prominent  than  forgiveness 
in  tlie  minds  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  that  their  language  in  those 
passages,  and  many  others,  would  almost  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was 
the  only  object  of  the  atonement.  The  promise  of  the  new  covenant,  as 
quoted  by  Paul  in  Heb.  10:  16,  IT,  exhibits  both  parts  of  salvation,  in  their 
proper  order  of  iftiportance.  '  This  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with, 
them  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord';  Itvill put  my  laws  into  their  hearts^ 
and  in  their  minds  will  I  ivrita  them  ;  [this  is  purification  ;]  and  their  sins 
and  iniquities  will  I  rememher  no  more  :^  [this  is  forgiveness.]  It  is  true 
that  forgiveness,  in  the  order  of  time,  necessarily  precedes  purification.-— 
The  past  must  be  forgiven,  before  men  can  be  saved  from  the  present  and 
future  power  of  sin.  Hence  we  find  salvation  set  forth  in  the  following 
manner : — '  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our 
sins,  and  to  cleanse  us fro77i  all  unrighteousness.^  IJohn  1;  9.  Here  the 
order  of  the  actual  process  of  salvation  is  exhibited-— 1,  confession  ;  2,  for- 
giveness ;  3,  purification.  But  it  is  obvious  that  forgiveness,  instead  of 
taking  precedence  of  purification  in  importance,  only  bears  the  relation  to  it 
•of  means  to  an  end.  God  pardons  us  that  he  may  cleanse  us.  Forgiveness 
is  the  foundation  of  purification ;  but  purification  is  that,  without  winch  for- 
giveness would  be  worthless,  as  a  foundation  would  be  Avorthless  without  a 
superstructure. 

When  therefore  Christ  is  called  the  '  Lamb  of  God,  that  taJcetJi  away  the 
Mu  of  the  world^  we  understand  the  language  as  meaning  more  than  that 
by  the  atonement  he  has  provided  for  the  for give^iess  of  mankind,  and  so  has 
taken  away  the  legal  consequences  of  sin.  The  '  taking  away  of  sins'  is 
spoken  of  in  Heb.  10:  4,  as  equivalent  to  a  cleansing,  by  which  the  con- 
science 'w>  purged  from  sin,  and  by  which  'the  comer  thereto  is  made  per- 
Ject.^  The  apostle  sa^s  that  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  could  not  effect  this 
cleansing  ;  but  he  holds  up  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lamb  of  God,  "as  able  thus 
to  '  take  away  sins.'  His  language  is — '  By  the  which  will  [i.  e.  the  will 
of  God  executed  by  Christ  on  the  cross,  which  will  is  given  to  believers  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,]  we  are  sanctified,  through  the  offering  of  the  body  of 
Jesus  Christ  once  for  all.'  Yer.  10.  And  again,  '  By  one  offering  he  hath 
forever  perfected  them  that  are  sanctified.'  Ver.  14.  This  language  cer- 
tainly ascribes  a  purifying  power  to  the  atonement,  and  indeed  in  such  a 
way  as  wholly  to  echpse  its  purchase  of  forgiveness.  It  is  said  in  1  John 
3:  5,  that  Clirist  '  was  inanifeatcd  to  take  away  our  sins;^  and  the  meaning 


SALVATION  FEOM  SI^.  151 

of  the  expression  is  clearly  determined  by  what  immediately  follows  : — '  Who- 
soever abidetli  in  Mm  sinneth  not  ;  whosoever  sinneth  hath  not  seen  him^ 
neither  known  him.''     He  '  takes  away  sin'  in  such  a  way,  that  they  who  • 
avail  themselves  of  his  sacrifice  do  not  commit  sin. 

This  \dew  of  the  object  for  which  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world  and 
laid  down  his  life,  and  this  view  alone,  justifies  us  in  calling  the  message 
which  came  by  him,  '  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed  God."*  A  '  gospel' 
is  good  news.,  'glad  tidings  of  great  joy.''  Luke  2:  10.  But  Jesus  Christ 
brought  no  neivs  to  the  world,  if  his  message  was  merely  or  chiefly  a  procla- 
mation of  pardon.  Forgiveness  had  been  promised  to  the  penitent  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world.  God  had  proclaimed  himself  to  Moses  and  the 
children  of  Israel,  '  merciful  and  gracious,  long-suffering,  and  abundant  in 
goodness  and  truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity,  trans- 
gression and  sin.'  Ex.  34:  6,  7.  The  'glad  tidings  of  great  joy'  which  the 
angels  represented  as  coming  with  the  birth  of  Christ,  were  in  fact  tidings 
of  things  well  known  to  the  prophets  and  patriarchs,  if  they  related  only  to 
the  pardoning  mercy  of  God.  But  if  Jesus  Christ  came  proclaiming  not 
©nly  the  mercy  of  God  in  pardoning  sin,  but  also  his  power  to  cleanse  and 
preserve  from  sin ;  if  in  addition  to  the  forgiveness  which  was  given  to  the 
patriarchs  and  prophets,  he  proposed  to  clothe  believers  with  the  robe  of 
righteousness  ;  in  a  word,  if  it  was,  as  we  have  shown,  his  peculiar  office  to 
Have  his p)eople  from  their  sins/  then  truly  he  brought  'good news'  to  the 
world — ^liis  message  is  worthy  to  be  called  '  the  glorious  gospel.' 

II.  The  sins  of  the  Old  Testament  saints  irrelevant. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  doctrine  of  salvation  from  sin,  thus  exhibited,  is  not 
liable  to  any  objections  drawn  from  the  experience  of  saints  who  lived  before 
the  manifestation  of  Christ.  We  do  not  rely  at  all .  upon  the  use  of  the 
^ovdi  perfect  in  reference  to  Noah,  Job,  &c.  ;  and  we  have  no  occasion  to 
prove  that  any  of  the  '  Old  Testament  saints'  were  free  from  sin.  On  the 
eontrar}^  we  admit,  nay  we  insist,  that  salvation  from  sin  'was  unknown  to 
the  ages  and  generations'  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  was  revealed  only 
after  the  commg  of  Christ.  "VYe  draw  a  very  broad  line  of  distinction  be- 
tween the  dispensation  before,  and  the  dispensation  after  the  manifestation 
of  Christ.  To  adduce  the  sins  of  ISIoses  and  David,  as  proof  that  the  gos- 
pel does  not  give  entire  sah^ation  from  sin,  is  to  overlook  altogether  this  dis- 
tinction of  dispensations,  and  in  fact  to  assume  that  Jesus  Christ  brought  no 
new  blessings  to  the  world.  This  is  as  absurd  as  it  would  be  to  undertake  ta 
disprove  the  realities  of  the  wonders  effected  at  the  present  time  by  steam 
power  and  the  art  of  printing,  by  referring  to  facts  that  occurred  a  thousand 
years  ago.  For  we  affirm,  and  have  shown,  and  shall  show  more  abundantly, 
that  the  coming  of  Jesus  Christ  effected  a  revolution  in  the  condition  of 
mankind  with  reference  to  spiritual  privilege,  as  great  as  was  effected  in 
mechanics  and  letters,  by  the  discovery  of  steam  power,  and  the  invention 
of  the  press. 

The  Old  Testament  saints  did  indeed  foresee  the  coming  of  Christ,  and 
rejoice  in  view  of  the  blessings  he  was  to  bring.  The  prophets  foretold  that 
a  '  way  of  holiness'  should'  be  cast  up ;   that  a  '  new  covenant,'  securing 


152  SALVATION  FROM  SIN. 

obedience,  should  be  given  to  God's  people  ;  that  they  should  be  ^  sprinkled 
with  clean  water/  and  '  a  new  heart  and  right  spirit'  should  be  given  them. 
But  that  this  foresight  did  not  by  any  means  amount  to  a  possession  of  the 
salvation  of  the  gospel,  is  very  evident  from  the  following  declaration  of 
Peter : — '  Ye  rejoice  with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory  ;  receiving  the 
end  of  your  faith,  even  the  salvation  of  your  souls:  of  which  salvation  the 
prophets  have  inquired  and  searched  diligently,  who  prophesied  of  the  grace 
that  should  come  unto  you :  searching  Avhat,  or  what  manner  of  time  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did  signify,  when  it  testified  beforehand 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  the  glory  that  should  follow.  Unto  whom  it 
was  revealed,  that  not  unto  themselves,  but  unto  us,  they  did  minister 
the  things  which  are  now  reported  unto  you  by  them  that  have  preached  the 
gospel  unto  you,  luith  the  Holy  Crhost  sent  down  from  heaven.'  1  Pet.  1: 
8 — 12.  This  passage  represents  the  saints  of  the  primitive  church  as  re- 
ceiving '  a  salvation  of  their  souls,'  which  the  Old  Testament  prophets  only 
foretold  as  about  to  come  after  the  sufferings  of  Christ. 

But  an  objector  may  ask,  "  Were  not  the  Old  Testament  saints  saved  ?" 
We  answer.  Yes  ;  but  not  till  Christ  came  in  the  flesh.  Paul,  speaking  of 
the  whole  hne  from  Abel  downward,  says — '  These  all,  having  obtained  a 
good  report  through  faith,  received  not  the  promise,  God  having  provided 
some  better  thing  for  us,  that  ilrey  without  i  •  iAo  dd  not  he  made  perfect."* 
Heb.  11:  39,  40.  Perx^ect  h-, liness  (and  of  coiii  e  salvation)  was  given  to 
the  saints  in  this  world  and  in  the  spiritual  world  o.t  the  same  time  ;  and  it 
was  not  given  to  either,  till  the  reconciUation  of  the  divine  and  human  na- 
tures was  effected  by  the  incarnation  and  death  of  Christ. 

"  But  the  Old  Testament  saints  certainly  had  faith ;  and  w^as  it  not  saving 
faith  ?"  Answer.  It  w^as  saving  in  this  respect — it  kept  them  from  despair, 
and  from  such  gross  transgressions  as  would  have  sealed  their  ruin,  and  gave 
them  a  hope,  more  or  less  clear  and  joyful,  of  ultimate,  complete  redemption ; 
but  it  did  not  save  them  from  sin — ^it  did  not  put  them  in  p)ossession  of  that 
which  they  hoped  for.  '  They  died  in  faith,  not  having  received  the  promi- 
ses, hut  having  seen  them  afar  off."*  Heb.  11:  13.  Their  faith,  like  a  cable 
that  connects  a  ship  with  the  shore,  connected  them  with  Sb  future  salvation. 
The  end  of  their  faith,  the  shore  which  they  hoped  for,  was  perfect  holiness  ; 
but  that  shore  they  never  reached,  till  after  '  the  sufferings  of  Christ' — the 
outpouring  of  the  blood  of  the  new  covenant.  Then  the  saints  on  earth  and 
in  heaven  '  received  the  end  of  their  faith,  even  the  salvation  of  their  souls.^ 

"  Were  not  the  Old  Testament  saints  horn  of  God  till  the  times  of  the 
ne\)r  covenant  ?"  Answer.  No  ;  for  Christ  was  the  '  first-bom'  among  all  his 
brethren  ;  (Rom.  8:  29  ;)  '  the  head  of  the  body,  the  church  ;  the  hegin- 
ning,  the  first-horn  from  the  dead.^  Col.  1: 18.  The  saints  that  lived  before 
his  manifestation,  Avere  heirs  of  a  future  sonsliip ;  i.  e.,  they  had  the  prom- 
ise of  God  that  they  should  be  made  partakers  of  the  divine  nature  at  a 
future  time.  Thcj  vfere  ihns pros2:^ectively  'children;'  but  experimentally 
they  were  'servants,^  and  did  not  receive  the  spirit  of  adoption  till  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Christian  dispensation.  All  this  is  plainly  set  forth  in  the 
Mowing  passage ; — '  The  heir,  as  long  as  he  is  a  child,  differeth  nothing 


SALVATION  FROM  BIN.  153 

from  a  servant,  though  he  be  lord  of  all ;  but  is  under  tutors  and  govsmors, 
until  the  time  appointed  of  the  father.  Even  so  we,  when  we  were  children, 
were  in  bondage  under  the  elements  of  the  world.  But  when  the  fullness  of 
the  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under 
the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the 
adoption  of  sons.  And  because  ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  spirit 
of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father.  Wherefore  thou  art  no 
more  a  servant,  but  a  son.'  Gal.  4:  1 — 7.  The  line  of  division  between  the 
servant  dispensation,  and  the  son  dispensation,  clearly  lies  where  God  sent 
his  Son  into  the  world,  and,  after  his  suiFermgs,  poured  out  the  Holy  Spirit. 

In  denying  that  the  Old  Testament  saints  were  born  of  God,  we  must  not 
be  understood  as  denying  that  they  had  any  religion.  It  appears  by  the 
passage  above  quoted,  that  there  are  tivo  distinct  stages  in  religious  experi- 
ence, in  the  first  of  which  men  may  properly  be  called  servants  of  God,  while 
yet  they  are  not  sons.  It  is  important  that  this  distinction  should  be  clearly 
seen,  and  constantly  kept  in  view.  We  admit,  and  t^ach,  that  the  Old  Tes- 
tament saints  were  servants  of  God  in  the  ages  before  Christ,  and  that  they 
became  sons  at  his  coming. 

"  But  what  is  the  difference  between  servants  and  sons  ?  Did  not  the 
Old  Testaments  saints  love  God  ?"  Answer.  Yes  ;  and  so,  many  servants 
love  and  honor  their  masters,  while  yet  there  is  no  vital  union,  no  Uood- 
relationship  between  them.  So  there  was  no  vital  union  between  God  and 
man,  till  Christ  came  in  the  flesh.  Abraham  was  called  the  friend  of  God, 
and  he  doubtless  loved  God  as  a  man  loves  his  friend ;  but  it  is  not  said  in 
sciipture,  and  it  is  not  true,  that  Christ  was  hi  him — that  he  dwelt  in  Gody 
a7id  God  in  him.  This  spiritual  indwelUng  was  '  hid  from  ages  and  from 
generations,'  and  was  manifested  only  after  the  mission  of  Christ.  Col.  1: 
26,  27.  It  is  this  that  brings  men  into  hlood-relationship  to  God,  so  that 
they  are  entitled  to  the  name  of  '  sons  of  God.' 

"  It  is  written,  'Every  one  that  loveth  is  horn  of  God.^  1  John  4:  7.  You 
admit  that  the  Old  Testament  saints  loved  God ;  does  it  not  necessarily  fol- 
low that  they  were  born  of  God  ?"  Answer.  No ;  for  while  we  admit  that 
they  loved  God  as  a  man  loves  his  friend,  we  deny  that  they  loved  him  'with 
all  their  heart f  and  this  is  the  only  kind  of  love  that  is  approved  by  the  law. 
Any  measure  of  love  short  of  this,  however  useful  it  may  be  in  its  external 
effects,  and  as  a  preparation  for  ultimate  holiness,  is  not  love  in  a  legal  point 
of  view,  and  is  not  the  love  which  John  had  in  mind  when  he  said, '  he  that 
loveth  is  born  of  God ;'  for  he  subsequently  defines  the  love  which  constitutes 
men  sons  of  God,  thus — '  God  is  love,  and  he  that  dwelleth  in  love,  dtvelleth 
in  God  and  God  in  him.^  Ver.  16.  Here  it  appears  that  the  love  of  which 
John  is  speaking  is  not  a  friendly  feeling  originating  in  a  man's  own  heart, 
but  the  love  of  God  'shed  abroad  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;' — it  is  love 
which  man  can  never  manufacture  by  the  working  of  his  own  will,  but  which 
must  be  attained  by  dwelling  in  God,  who  alone  loves  with  the  strength  re- 
quired by  the  law.  This  kind  of  love  was  not  in  the  world,  till  Christ  recon- 
ciled and  identified  the  divine  and  human  natures. 

"  But  were  not 'the  Old  Testament  saints  partakers  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?'* 


154  SALVATION  FROM  SIK. 

Answer.  They  were,  in  an  inferior  sense.  The  relation  which  they  sustain^ 
ed  to  God,  of  servants  or  friends,  did  not  exclude  them  from  his  favorable 
regard,  and  from  liis  spiritual  blessing.  There  was  undoubtedly  such  fellow- 
sliip  of  spirit  between  them  and  God,  as  may  exist  between  friends.  They 
were  instructed,  guided,  and  comforted  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  this  com- 
munion was  not  radical  enough  to  make  them  one  with  God.  They  were 
affianced,  but  not  married.  Their  fellowship  with  God  was  not  continuous^ 
and  as  compared  with  that  which  is  given  by  the  new  covenant,  was  external. 
It  could  not  be  said  of  them,  that  they  dwelt  in  God  and  God  in  them.  It 
is  evident  that  they  were  not  partakers  of  the  same  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  that  given  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  from  the  following  passage ; 
'  In  the  last  day,  that  great  day  of  the  feast,  Jesus  stood  and  cried,  saying, 
If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto  me  and  drink.  He  that  beheveth  on 
me,  as  the  scripture  hath  said,  out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water. 
But  this  spake  he  of  the  Spirit,  w^hich  they  that  believe  on  him  should  receive  ; 
for  the  Holy  Crhost  was  not  yet  given  ^  because  that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glo- 
rified.'   John  T:  3T— 39. 

The  Old  Testament  saints  had  enough  of  the  Spirit's  influence  to  give  them 
that  hopeful  faith  which  we  have  described.  Still  it  is  true,  that  the  prin- 
cipal moral  influence  under  which  they  lived  was  tlie  law  ;  and  '  the  law 
made  nothing  perfect.'  Heb.  7:  19.  Indeed  it  was  not  the  design  of  the  law 
to  save  men  from  sin,  but  simply  to  keep  them  within  the  reach  of  the  ulti- 
mate spiritual  agency  of  Christ ;  just  as  the  sheepfold  is  not  intended  to  wash 
the  sheep,  but  to  keep  them  within  such  bounds  that  the  shepherd  can  take 
them  and  wash  them  himself.  So  far  as  the  law  produced  any  direct  effect 
on  moral  character,  it  increased  rather  than  diminished  sin.  It '  entered 
THAT  the  offence  might  abound.''  Rom.  5:  20.  This  effect  was  nevertheless 
subservient  to  the  general  design  of  the  legal  dispensation,  which  was  io pre- 
pare men  for  the  subsequent  spiritual  dispensation ;  since  the  law,  in  aggra,- 
vating  sin,  ripened  conviction^  and  so  made  men  sensible  of  their  need  of  an 
almighty  Saviour.  The  preparatory  character  of  the  legal  dispensation  is  set 
forth  in  the  following  passage  ; — '  Before  faith  came,  we  were  kept  binder  the 
law^  shut  up  unto  the  faith  which  should  afterwards  be  revealed.  Wherefore 
the  law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  to  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified 
hj  faith.  But  after  that  faith  is  come,  we  are  no  longer  under  a  schoolmas- 
ter ;  for  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.'  Gal.  3: 
23—26. 

We  conclude,  from  this  view  of  the  condition  of  the  Old  Testament  saints, 
that  their  sins  cannot  be  pertinently  alleged  as  objections  to  the  doctrme  of 
salvation  from  sin. 

III.  The  sins  of  Christ's  disciples,  during  his  personal  minis- 
try, IRRELEVANT. 

AVe  are  not  yet  past  the  difficulties  of  our  doctrine.  The  objector  may  still 
allege,  that  sin  remamed  in  '  the  saints'  after  the  coming  of  Christ.  It  is 
manifest  that  the  disciples,  while  Christ  was  with  them  personally,  were  not 
free  from  sin.  They  exhibited  a  hasty  and  bigoted  zeal,  in  proposing  to  call 
fire  from  heaven  to  consume  their  opposcrs.  Luke  9:  54.'     Carnal  ambition 


SALVATION  FROM  SIN.  "     155 

tind  childish  rivalry  appeared  among  them.  Luke  9:  46.  At  the  cross  they 
all  forsook  their  master  ;  and  Peter,  the  boldest  and  most  devoted  of  them, 
thrice  denied  him  with  cursing  and  oaths.  '  All  this  shows  (the  objector 
may  say)  that  salvation  from  sin  did  not  come  into  the  world  with  the  coming 
of  Christ.'  We  admit  the  facts,  but  deny  the  inference.  In  order  to  show 
that  the  sins  of  the  disciples  during  the  personal  ministry  of  Christ,  have  no 
force  as  objections  to  our  doctrine,  we  will  now  bring  to  view  more  distinctly 
than  we  have  yet  done,  the  process  by  which  salvation  from  sin  is  effected, 
and  ascertain  more  exactly  when  the  Christian  dispensation  commenced. 

The  gospel  is  '  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God.'  1  Cor.  1:  24. 
In  other  words,  salvation  is  effected  by  two  agencies,  viz.,  the  spirit  and  the 
truth.  The  Spirit  is  the  living  agent  in  the  work,  and  the  truth  is  its  instrvr 
ment.  2  Thess.  2:  13.  IPet.l:  22,  &c.  Now  the  question  is,  at  w'/ia^  ifme 
in  the  history  of  Christ's  mission,  were  these  two  agencies,  in  the  gospel  sense, 
introduced  and  apphed  ?  We  grant  that  partial  measures  of  the  Spirit  and 
the  truth  were  given  to  men  in  all  ages.  Yet  it  is  true  in  an  important  sense 
that '  grace  and  truth  came  [only]  by  Jesus  Christ ;'  (John  1:  17;)  so  that 
the  question  is  pertinent  and  intelligible —  When  was  the  Spirit  and  truth 
peculiar  to  the  Christian  dispensation^  given  to  mankind  f  We  have  al- 
ready seen  a  plain  mtimation  in  the  passage  quoted  from  1  Pet.  1:,  that  the 
gospel  of  present  salvation  went  forth  subsequently  to  *  the  sufferings  of 
Christ."*  Ver.  11.  That  gospel  is  also  specially  characterized  by  the  fact  that 
it  was  '  preached  iviih  the  Holg  Ghost  sent  down  from  heaven.'  Ver.  12.  We 
know  that  the  Holy  Ghost  as  promised  for  the  '  last  days,'  was  not  sent  down 
from  heaven  till  after  the  ^sufferings  of  Christ.'  'The  Holy  Ghost  was  not 
yet  given,  [i.  e.  during  the  personal  ministry  of  Christ,]  because  that  Jesus 
was  not  yet  glorified.^  John  7:  39.  '  When  he  ascended  up  on  high,  he  led 
captivity  captive,  and  [having  thus  secured  a  channel  for  his  spiritual  power] 
gave  gifts  unto  men.'  Eph.  4:  8.  'If  I  go  not  away''  said  Jesus, '  the  Com- 
forter, [i.  e.  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  dispensation]  will  not  come  unto  you ; 
but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  you.'  John  16:  7.  Thus  it  is  plain 
that  the  spiritual  agent  of  salvation  which  Christ  came  to  give  the  world,  was 
not  in  the  world  at  the  time  when  the  disciples  were  guilty  of  the  sins  alleged 
against  them. 

Neither  were  they  at  that  time  in  possession  of  the  truth  by  which  salvation 
is  effected.  The  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  are  the  great  facts  em- 
ployed in  the  salvation  of  souls.  These  are  the  things  '  reported '  in  the 
gospel^ — the  instruments  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  '  Brethren,'  says  Paul,  '  I 
declare  unto  you  the  gospel,  which  I  preached  to  you,  which  also  ye  have 
received,  and  wherein  ye  stand  ;  hyivhich  also  ye  are  saved.  [What  is  that 
gospel  ?  The  apostle  answers :]  I  delivered  unto  you,  first  of  all,  that 
which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins,  according  to  the 
scriptures ;  and  that  he  w^as  buried,  and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day, 
according  to  the  scriptures.'  1  Cor.  15:  1 — 4.  Accordingly,  the  same 
apostle  charges  Timothy  to  remember  the  resurrection  as  the  principal  matter 
of  his  gospel,  (see  2  Tim.  2:  8,)  and  makes  belief  in  the  resurrection  the 
very  basis  of  salvation.  Rom.  10:  9,.     In  fact  Paul's  gospel  -was  brieJBiy  this : — 


156  SALVATION  FROM  SIN. 

*  Christ  died,  rose  from  the  dead,  ascended  on  high,  and  sent  forth  the  Holy 
Spirit.  By  that  Spirit  we  are  baptized  into  Christ  and  made  partakers  of 
his  spiritual  condition  ;  so  that  hehig  crucified  with  him,  we  are  dead  to  sin^ 
and  having  risen  with  him,  we  live  to  holiness,^  See  Rom.  6:  1,  &c.,  2  Cor. 
6:  14 — 16,  Eph.  1:  19.  Now  it  is  evident  that  this  gospel  could  not  be 
preached,  until  Christ  had  died  and  risen.  Even  if  the  Holy  Spirit  had 
been  given  before,  it  would  not  have  had  its  instruments.  The  facts  neces- 
sary to  salvation  were  not  in  existence. 

It  is  manifest  that  Christ  did  not  enter  lapon  his  office  as  a  savior  from  sin 
till  after  his  death,  from  a  great  variety  of  such  passages  as  the  following : 
'Though  he  were  a  son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  by  the  things  which  he 
suffered ;  and  being  Tnade  perfect,  [  i.  e.  by  the  death  of  the  cross,]  he  he- 
came  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all  them  that  obey  him.'  Heb.  5:  8, 9. 
'  Wliere  a  testament  is,  there  must  also  of  necessity  be  the  death  of  the  tes- 
tator: for  a  testament  is  of  force  after  men  are  dead:  otherwise  it  is  of  no 
strength  at  all  while  the  testator  liveth.'  Heb.  9:  16, 17.  In  accordance 
with  the  doctrine  of  these  passages,  Chri&t  speaks  of  the  '  new  covenant,'  or 
what  is  the  same  thuig,  the  covenant  of  salvation  from  sin,  as  being  '  in  his 
blood,''  (Luke  22:  20,)  and  intimates  that  his  blood  must  be  shed,  before 
men  could  partake  of  the  blessings  of  that  covenant. 

The  sins,  then,  of  the  disciples,  before  the  death  of  Christ,  stand  on  the 
same  ground  with  the  sins  of  the  Old  Testament  saints.  They  occurred  be- 
fore the  Christian  dispensation  began ;  i.  e.  before  the  introduction  and  appli- 
cation of  the  great  agencies  of  salvation,  viz.,  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  (see 
Gal.  4:  6,)  and  the  truth  concemmg  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 
We  must  look  to  the  period  subsequent  to  the  day  of  Pentecost,  for  test- 
examples  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  Christian  salvation. 

That  the  disciples  were  not  Christians  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  term, 
during  Christ's  personal  ministry,  is  evident  from  the  language  Christ  used 
toward  Peter.  In  one  instance  he  called  him  Satan,  (Mark  8:  33,)  and  in 
another  instance  he  said  to  him,  '  When  thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy 
brethren,'  (Luke  22:  32,)  implying  that  he  was  not  then  converted. 

What  has  been  already  said  of  the  condition  of  the  Old  Testament  saints, 
as  servants  under  the  law,  and  heirs  of  the  future  blessings  of  the  gospel, 
may  be  applied,  without  any  essential  alteration,  to  the  condition  of  the  dis- 
ciples before  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

IV..  The.  sins  of  believers,  during  the  apostolic  age,  irrelevant. 

Finally  it  nrny  be  objected  to  our  doctrine,  that  the  saints  of  the  apostohc 
age,  though  they  lived  after  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  and  the 
effiision  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  were  therefore  certainly  subjects  of  the 
Christian  dispensation,  did  nevertheless  commit  sin.  This  objection  is  more 
pertinent  and  formidable  than  any  that  have  gone  before.  We  come  to  the 
issue  now  on  gospel  ground.  The  apostolic  age  is  certainly  the  period, 
where  the  question  whether  the  gospel  gives  salvation  from  sin  in  this  world, 
is  finally  to  be  tried.  We  admit,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  none  of  the  saints 
of  that  age  were  saved  from  sin,  our  doctrine,  by  the  test  of  experience,  is 
proved  false.    And  on  the  other  hand  we  msist,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  anyt 


SALVATION  FROM   SIN.  157 

in  that  age  were  saved  from  sin,  by  the  same  test  our  doctrine  is  proved 
true.  Dismissing  from  our  minds,  as  irrelevant,  the  history  of  the  saints  of 
all  ages  before,  and  of  all  ages  since,  we  will  now  bring  the  gospel  to  the 
test  of  the  experience  of  the  primitive  church. 

In  many  cases,  the  power  of  an  agency  is  not  to  be  estimated  by  its  ?//7i- 
mediate  effects.  The  healing  efficacy  of  medicine,  for  instance,  is  not  to  be 
judged  by  the  symptoms  which  it  produces  instantly  after  being  taken.  We 
must  wait  till  it  has  had  time  sufficient  for  a  legitimate  operation.  We  affirm 
that  the  gospel  is  a  medicine  competent  to  the  complete  cure  of  sin.  That 
medicine  (at  least  the  principal  element  of  it)  was  given  to  the  primitive 
church  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  But  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  or  within  any  very  short  period  afterwards,  it  exhibi- 
ted its  full  efficacy.  The  process  by  which  full  salvation  is  effected,  is  one 
that  requires  time,  because  it  is  not  merely  a  spiritual  operation,  but  an  ex- 
hibition and  application  of  truth.  The  office  of  the  Comforter  is  to  '  take  of 
the  things  of  Christ  and  show  them  unto'*  believers.  John  16:  14.  On  the 
day  of  Pentecost  it  hegan  its  work,  but  it  did  not  immediately  show  the  dis- 
ciples all  the  things  of  Christ.  They  then  entered  the  school  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  they  did  not  graduate  in  one  day.  They  were  evidently  then, 
and  for  a  long  time  afterwards,  in  a  great  measure,  ignorant  of  the  true 
nature  of  the  kmgdom  of  Christ.  It  was  ten  years  after  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, before  they  understood  that  they  were  at  liberty  to  preach  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, though  Christ  expressly  commissioned  them  to  *  teach  ail  nations.*  In 
many  other  cases,  the  things  which  he  had  spoken  to  them,  they  did  not  ap- 
prehend at  once,  even  after  the  Comforter  had  come,  but  they  were  '  brought 
to  their  remembrance'  from  time  to  time  ;  e.  g..  Acts  11:  16.  Their  intro- 
duction to  the  truth  of  the  gospel  was  progressive,  and  it  began  with  the 
most  simple  external  rudiments.  They  preached  at  first  the  death  of  Christ 
as  a  reason  for  repentance,  and  his  resurrection  as  proof  of  his  Messiahship  ^ 
but  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they  perceived  the  deep  spiritual  mean- 
ing and  efficiency  of  those  great  facts  of  the  gospel. 

It  cannot  be  repeated  too  often,  that  salvation  from  sin  is  effected  by  the 
spiritual  application  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  Believers,  be- 
holding these  facts  by  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  receive  the  assim-- 
Hating  impress  of  them.  Christ's  death  becomes  their  death,  and  his  resur- 
rection their  resurrection.  Thus  they  die  to  sin  and  live  to  God.  Until 
these  facts  are  thus  apprehended,  the  truth  of  the  gospel  has  not  had  itg* 
operation,  though  the  Sjpirit  of  the  Christian  dispensation  may  have  been 
received.  Let  us  look  at  a  specimen  of  Paul's  preaching  on  this  point.— 
'  Know  ye  not,'  says  he,  '  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  [i.  e.  by  the 
Holy  Spirit]  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  Therefore- 
we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised- 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  w^e  also  should  walk  in*" 
ne^vness  of  life.  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  hkeness  of  his- 
death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection  :  [this  would  not 
follow  if  the  apostle  was  speaking  of  water  baptism  :]  knowing  this,  that  our 
old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that  the  hody  of  sin  might  he  destroy ed^  that 


158  SALVATION  FROM  Sm. 

henceforth  we  sJiould  not  serve  sin:  for  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin. 
Now  if  we  be  dead  with  Christ,  we  beheve  that  we  shall  also  live  with  him : 
knowing  that  Christ,  being  raised  from  the  dead,  dieth  no  more  ;  death  hath 
no  more  dominion  over  him.  For  in  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once  : 
but  in  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God.  Likewise  reckon  ye  also  your- 
selves to  be  dead  indeed  imto  sin,  hut  alive  unto  God  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord.  Let  not  sin  therefore  reign  in  your  mortal  bodies,  that  ye  should 
obey  it  in  the  lusts  thereof:  neither  yield  ye  your  members  as  instruments  of 
imrighteousness  unto  sin :  but  yield  yourselves  unto  God,  as  those  that  are 
aUve  from  the  dead,  and  your  members  as  instruments  of  righteousness  unto 
God.  For  sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you.^  Rom.  6:  3 — 14.  Here 
we  have  Paul's  gospel — '  Christ  crucified,  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation' 
from  sin.  But  is  it  not  evident  that  the  truths  exhibited  in  this  passage,  are 
among  the  deepest  of  '  the  deep  things  of  God' — spiritual  problems,  the 
solution  of  which  would  naturally  engage  the  primitive  church  a  long  time  ? 
It  is  certainly  supposable — indeed  Paul's  language  plainly  implies — that  be- 
lievers might  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  long  before  they  were  aware 
that  their  baptism  involved  death  to  sin,  and  resurrection  to  holiness.  The 
apostle  addresses  them,  as  persons  who  had  taken  the  medicine  of  salvation, 
but  had  not  digested  it  and  realized  its  legitimate  operation.  Though  they 
were  baptized  into  Christ,  they  had  not  reached  that  radical  spiritual  identity 
with  him,  by  which  the  body  of  sin  is  destroyed.  The  Holy  Spirit  was  upon 
them,  but  had  not  yet  pervaded  them.  Accordingly  Paul,  as  a  servant  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  held  up  before  them  the  things  of  Christ,  viz.,  his  death, 
and  resurrection,  exhorting  them  to  reckon  themselves  identified  with  him, 
that  so  they  might  realize  his  victory  over  sin. 

Interesting  as  the  inquiry  is,  we  cannot  perhaps  determine  at  present, 
exactly  at  what  period  in  the  history  of  the  primitive  church,  these  deep 
salvation-truths  were  manifested  to  the  saints.  But  we  may  safely  assume 
that  it  was  long  after  the  day  of  Pentecost.  All  the  evidence  there  is  in  the 
case,  goes  to  show  that  Paul  first  apprehended  and  preached  salvation  from 
sin,  by  spiritual  identity  with  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  His 
writings  alone  present  an  extended  and  systematic  exposition  of  that  salvar 
tion.  If  it  was  given  to  him,  first  to  know  and  preach  the  '  mystery  of 
godh'ness' — Christ  in  the  saints,  crucified  and  risen, — then  we  must  reckon 
the  beginning  of  salvation  from  sin,  from  his  ministry;  and  he  was  not 
called  to  faith  and  apostleship,  till  long  after  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

However  this  may  be,  it  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  assume,  (what  we 
believe  the  evidence  and  reasoning  before  us  authorize  us  to  assume,)  that 
the  development  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel  in  the  primitive  church  after 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  was  progressive ;  that  it  began  with  external  rudiments, 
«,nd,  proceeding  inward,  reached  the  deep -spiritual  mysteries  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  which  contain  the  power  of  salvation,  only  at  an  advanced  period  of 
the  apostolic  age.  With  these  principles  in  view,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
only  fair  way  of  judging  the  power  of  the  gospel,  is  to  look  for  test-examples 
to  a  period  later  than  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  to  that  class  in  the  primitive 
church  who  had  received  the  truth  of  Christ  in  the  maturity  of  its  develop- 
ment. 


B-ALVATION  FROM  SIN'.  159 

V.   HoLmESS  ACTUALLY  ATTAINED  BY  SOME  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE. 

Admitting  as  we  freely  do,  that  in  the  early  days  of  the  apostolic  age,  sin 
still  had  place  in  the  church ;  admitting  that  years  after  the  effusion  of  the 
Spirit,  Teter  was  to  be  blamed,'  and  James  w^as  obhged  to  say,  '  in  many 
things  we  offend  all;'  still  w-e  maintain  that  the  time  came  at  last  when  they 
that  continued  in  Christ's  word,  reached  the  mighty  truth  of  the  atonement, 
and  by  it  were  '  made  free' — that  Christianity,  when  its  power  was  fully  re- 
vealed, '  made  an  end  of  sin  and  brought  in  everlasting  righteousness.'  We 
are  fully  sustained  in  this  position  by  the  1st  Epistle  of  John.  That  epistle 
was  among  the  latest  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  as  such,  is  just 
the  testunony  we  need  to  determine  what  was  the  power  of  Christianity^ 
when  its  fruit  was  ripe.  Taking  that  epistle  by  itself,  disencumbered  as  it 
ought  to  be  of  the  experience  of  Jewish  and  semi-Christian  saints,  it  is  im- 
possible to  avoid  the  conviction,  that  the  theoretical  and  practical  standard 
of  religion  there  exhibited  was  perfect  holiness.  John  lived  to  see  the 
full  Hght  of  that  day  of  righteousness,  which  began  to  dawn  when  Christ 
came  into  the  world.  'The  darkness j'  said  he,  Hs  past,  and  the  true  light 
now  shineth.^  1  Epist.  2:  .8.  What  were  the  discoveries  which  he  made  in 
the  broad  daylight  of  Christianity  ?  Let  us  hear  his  own  testimony.  '  This 
is  the  message  which  we  have  heard  of  him  and  declare  unto  you,  that  God 
is  light,  and  in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all.  If  we  say  that  we  have  fellowship 
with  him,  and  walk  in  darkness,  we  lie,  and  do  not  the  truth  ;  but  if  we  walk 
in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the  light,  we  have  fellowship  one  with  another,  and 
the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin.'  1:  5 — 7. 
'  Hereby  do  we  know  that  we  know  him,  if  we  keep  his  commandments. 
He  that  saith,  I  know  him,  and  keepeth  not  his  commandments,  is  a  liar, 
and  the  truth  is  not  in  him.'  2:  3,  4.  *  Now  are  we  the  sons  of  God  ;  and 
it  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be  ;  but  we  know  that  when  he  shall 
appear,  we  shall  be  like  liim  ;  for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is.  And  every  man 
that  hath  this  hope  in  him,  purifieth  himself,  even  as  he  is  pure.  Whosoever 
committeth  sin  transgresseth  also  the  law :  for  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the 
law.  And  ye  know  that  he  was  manifested  to  take  away  our  sins ;  and  in 
him  is  no  sin.  Whosoever  ahideth  in  him  sinneth  not :  whosoever  sinneth, 
hath  not  seen  him,  neither  known  him.  Little  children,  let  no  man  deceive 
you :  he  that  doeth  righteousness,  is  righteous,  even  as  he  is  righteous.  He 
that  committeth  sin,  is  of  the  devil ;  for  the  devil  sinneth  from  the  beginnmg. 
For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  was  manifested  that  he  might  destroy  the 
works  of  the  devil.  Whosoever  is  horn  of  Q-od  doth  not  commit  sin;  for 
his  seed  remaineth  in  him ;  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  born  of  God. 
In  this  the  children  of  God  are  manifest,  and  the  children  of  the  devil : 
whosoever  doeth  not  righteousness,  is  not  of  God,  neither  he  that  loveth  not 
his  brother.'  3:  2 — 10.  *  Herein  is  our  love  made  perfect,  that  we  may 
have  boldness  in  the  day  of  judgment :  because  as  he  is,  so  are  we  in  this 
world.''  4:  17.  '  We  know  that  whosoever  is  horn  of  God  sinneth  not ;  but 
he  that  is  begotten  of  God  keepeth  himself,  and  that  wicked  one  touchetb 
him  not.'  5:  18.  If  this  is  not  Perfectionism,  we  know  not. how,  by  any 
human  language,  Perfectionism  can  be  expressed. 


160  SALVATION  FROM  SIN. 

"We  are  aware  that  all  this  testimony — ^the  very  burden  of  the  whole  epis- 
tle— is  counterbalanced  in  many  minds  by  one  little  text  that  occurs  in  the 
first  chapter,  viz.,  ^If  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the 
tvutli  is  not  in  us."*  1:  8.  But  a  candid  survey  of  the  context  cannot  but 
satisfy  any  discerning  person,  that  this  text  was  not  designed  to  militate 
against  the  doctrine  of  salvation  from  sin.  Let  us  look  at  what  goes  before  it. 
The  apostle,  having  entered  into  full  fellowship  with  Christ's  victory,  in  ad- 
vance of  the  mass  of  the  church,  turns  toward  those  who  are  following  him, 
and  announces  the  consequences  of  that  fellowship.  '  This  then  is  the  mes- 
Bage  that  we  have  heard  of  him  and  declare  unto  you,  that  God  is  light,  and 
in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all.  If  we  say  we  have  felloAvship  with  him,  and 
walk  in  darkness,  we  lie,  and  do  not  the  truth.  If  we  walk  in  the  hght,  as 
he  is  in  the  Hght,  we  have  fellowship  one  with  another,  and  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."*  Ver.  5,  7.  Perfect  holi- 
ness, then,  is  the  result  of  the  fellowship  which  he  professes  to  have  entered 
into  himself,  and  which  he  proposes  to  them.  He  next  proceeds  to  state  the 
terms  of  admission  to  that  fellowship ;  and  first,  he  bars  out  the  self-righteous : 
'  If  we  say  ive  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us.' 
In  other  words  :  '  Jesus  Christ  proposes  to  cleanse  us  from  all  sin.  Now  if 
we  say  Ave  have  no  sin  to  be  cleansed  from— if,  before  availing  ou7'selves  of 
his  saving  power,  we  rest  in  our  own  innocence,  and  deny  our  need  of  his 
salvation, — we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us.'  Then  comes 
the  alternative  :  If  Ave  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us 
our  sins,  and  to  demise  us  from  all  unrighteousness.''  It  is  obvious  that  the 
confession  in  this  verse  is  antithetical  to  the  denial  in  the  verse  before,  and 
that  both  are  referable  to  persons  in  the  same  stage  of  experience.  But  the 
confession  certainly  is  represented  as  preceding  that  forgiveness  which  Christ 
offers  to  sinners.  Of  course  the  denial  is  to  be  referred  to  those  who  have 
not  yet  accepted  Christ's  offer.  The  apostle  supposes  two  ways  in  which  his 
message  may  be  treated.  1.  Some  may  say  they  have  no  sin,  and  therefore 
have  no  need  of  salvation  from  sin ;  these  he  condemns  as  self-deceivers. 
2.  Others  may  acknowledge  their  sin  and  need  of  salvation ;  to  these  he 
promises  pardon  and  perfect  hohness.  The  verse  in  question  is  guarded 
from  perversion  by  plain  declarations  standing  immediately  before  and  after 
it,  that  Christ  proposes  to  cleanse  those  who  receiA^e  him,  'from  all  siii — 
from  all  unrighteousness.^  Its  simple  object  manifestly  is  to  assert  the 
universal  sinfulness  of  mankind  without  Christ,  and  to  cut  off  (as  Paul  does 
in  the  first  part  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans)  the  hopes  of  those  who  en- 
trench themselves  in  their  OAvn  righteousness.  We  think  it  not  uncharitable 
to  say  that  they  who  persist  in  construing  this  verse  as  opposed  to  the  doc- 
trine of  salvation  from  sin,  and  in  regarding  it  as  sufiicient  to  offset  all  the 
plain  assertions,  scattered  through  the  whole  epistle,  that  perfect  holiness  is 
the  only  standard  of  true  Christianity,  belong  to  that  class  of  persons  Avho 
'  strain  at  a  gnat,  and  swallow  a  camel.' 

But  we  need  not  rely  exclusively  on  the  1st  epistle  of  John  for  proof  that 
the  gospel,  in  its  mature  development,  gave  full  salvation  from  sin.  If  our 
theory  conccrmng  the  progressive  nature  of  the  spiritual  experience  of  the 


SALVATION  FROM   SIN.  161 

primitive  churcli  is  correct,  we  may  naturally  expect,  in  examining  the  rec- 
ords of  that  church,  to  find,  after  the  period  when  the  great  salvation  truths 
concerning  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  began  to  be  seen  and  preach- 
ed, evidence  of  the  existence  of  two  distinct  classes  of  believers.     While  the 
mass  of  the  church,  and  especially  the  new  converts  who  were  added  to  it 
from  time  to  time,  might  yet  be  in  a  carnal  state,  not  having  apprehended 
the  truth  that  makes  free  from  sin,  there  might  still  be  a  class  of  older  and 
more  spiritual  believers,  who  had  entered  into  full  fellowship  with  Christ,  and 
thus  had  attained  perfect  holiness.     In  the  writings  of  Paul  we  find  proof 
that  this  was  actually  the  case.     '  We  speak  wisdom,'  says  he, '  among  them 
that  Sire  2^erfect.^  1  Cor.  2:  6.     It  appears  by  what  follows  that  he  uses  the 
word  perfect  in  this  case  to  describe  those  who  had  attained  complete  spirit- 
uality, i.  e.  had  overcome  the  flesh,  and  were  in  full  fellowship  with  Christ. 
^  The  natural  man,'  he  says  a  few  verses   after,  '  receiveth  not  the  things  of 
the  Spirit  of  God :  for  they  are  foolishness  to  him :  neither  can  he  know  them, 
because  they  are  spiritually  discerned.     But  he  that  is  spiritual  [this  is  the 
class  whom  the  apostle  calls  perfect, ~\  judge th  all  things,  yet  he  himself  is 
judged  of  no  man.     For  who  ha^th  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  that  he  may 
instruct  him  ?     But  we  have  the  onind  of  Christ.^  Ver.  14 — 16.     We  per- 
ceive by  this  passage,  that  there  was  actually  a  class  in  the  primitive  church, 
and  Paul  was  one  of  them,  who  were  above  human  judgment,  and  had  the 
mind  of  Christ.     It  is  evident  that  they  were  perfectly  hol^,  and  that  this  is 
the  sense  in  which  they  were  perfect  and  spiritual,  from  the  contrast  which 
follows : — '  And  I  brethren  could  not  speak  unto  you  as  unto  spiritual,  but 
as  unto  carnal,  even  as  unto  babes  in  Christ.     I  have  fed  you  with  milk, 
and  not  with  meat :  for  hitherto  ye  were  not  able  to  bear  it,  neither  yet  now 
are  ye  able  ;  for  ye  are  yet  carnal.     For  whereas  there  is  among  you  envy- 
ing, and  strife,  and  dissensions,  are  ye  not  carnal,  and  walk  as  menT  Chap. 
3:  1 — 3.     Thus  the  perfection  of  Paul  and  of  those  among  whom  he  spoke 
wisdom,  stands  opposed  to  the  imperfection  of  those  who  were  yet  subject  to 
sinful  passions  ;  it  is  therefore  perfection  of  holiness.     The  following  are  in- 
stances of  the  use  of  the  words,  spiritual  and  perfect,  in  the  same  way. 
'  Brethren  if  a  man  be  overtaken  in  a  fault,  ye  which  are  spiritual  restore 
such  an  one  in  the  spirit  of  meekness.'    Gal.  6:  1.     '  Let  us  therefore,  as 
many  as  be  perfect,  be  thus  minded.'  Phil.  3:  15.     However  carnal  then 
the  primitive  church  may  have  been  as  a  mass,  and  in  its  early  days,  it  is 
manifest  that  in  Paul's  time  there  was  a  class  within  it  who  were  properly 
denominated  j9e?/ec^.     It  is  also  manifest  from  what  we  have  before  said,  that 
this  class  became  more  and  more  numerous  and  distinct,  as  the  harvest  time 
of  the  apostolic  age  approached,  till  at  last,  when  John  wrote  his  epistles, 
Perfectionism  was  fully  developed,  and  had  become  the  acknowleged  stand- 
ard of  Christian  experience. 

Thus  we  have  shown,  first,  that  salvation  from  sin,  present  and  future, 

was  the  great  object  of  the  mission  and  sacrifice  of  Christ ;    secondly,  that 

the  sins  of  the  Old  Testament  saints  cannot  fairly  be  adduced  as   evidence 

a^gainst  this  doctrine,  because  they  were  committed  before  Christ  came  into 

20 


162  SALVATION  FROM  SIN. 

the  world ;  thirdly,  that  the  sins  of  the  disciples  during  Christ's  personal 
ministry,  cannot  be  so  adduced,  because  they  were  committed  before  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  the  efiusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
fourthly,  that  the  sins  of  many  in  the  primitive  church  after  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, cannot  be  so  adduced,  because  they  were  committed  before  the  truth 
concerning  Christ's  death  and  resurrection  was  fully  developed  and  applied ; 
and  fifthly,  that  according  to  the  testimony  of  Paul  and  John,  Christianity 
m  its  maturity,  did  actually  make  believers  perfectly  holy  in  this  world. 

VI.  Paul  an  example  of  salvation  from  all  sin. 

In  support  of  the  general  argument  which  we  have  presented,  we  will  now 
adduce  an  individual  instance  of  perfect  holiness.  And  our  specimen  shall 
be  the  apostle  Paul.  It  has  already  been  seen  that  he  belonged  to  the  class 
of  those  who  were  called  perfect.  By  a  more  particular  examination  of  the 
testimony  concerning  him,  we  propose  to  show  that  he  was  saved  from  sin  in 
this  world.  For  this  purpose,  we  will  in  the  first  place  notice  and  explain 
several  passages  in  which  he  is  said  to  have  confessed  sin ;  secondly,  answer 
the  specific  charges  commonly  made  against  him ;  and  thirdly,  produce  pos- 
itive proof  that  he  was  holy,  from  his  own  testimony. 
I.  Paul's  supposed  confessions. 

(1.)  In  the  seventh  chapter  of  Romans  the  apostle  says : — '  I  am  carnal, 
sold  under  sin  ;  for  what  I  would,  that  do  I  not ;  but  what  I  hate,  that  do  I. 
To  will  is  present  with  me ;  but  how  to  perform  that  which  is  good  I  find 
not.  ...  0  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body 
of  this  death  ?'  Eom.  7:  14 — 24.  This  passage,  taken  by  itself,  would 
seem  to  be  a  very  explicit  confession  of  sin.  Indeed  it  is  a  confession  of  un- 
mitigated, all-controlling  depra^dty.  If  it  is  to  be  admitted  as  a  description 
of  Paul's  Christian  experience,  it  evidently  proves  that  he  was  far  below 
even  modern  Christians  in  spiritual  attainments,  or  at  least  in  profession ; 
for  the  very  lowest  standards  of  the  most  fashionable  creeds  make  some  de- 
cree of  righteousness  the  test  of  Christian  character ;  whereas,  according  to 
the  above  confession,  Paul  was  complei^ely  carnal,  a  prisoner  of  sin  bound 
hand  and  foot ;  utterly  unable  to  perform  any  good  thing.  He  does  not 
say  with  modern  imperfectionists,  that  he  is  occasionally  overcome  by  sin, 
bvt  that  he  is  '  sold  under  sin  J  Most  persons  admit  that  the  hard  saying 
of  John  in  1  Epis.  8:  8,  means  as  much  as  this — that  '  he  that  committeth 
ski  habitually^  is  of  the  devil.'  But  that  text,  even  thus  reduced,  gives 
no  quarter  to  this  experience  of  Paul,  for  he  confesses  himself  uninterrupt- 
edly sinful.  Before  consenting  to  the  intolerable  conclusion  that  Paul  was 
*  a  child  of  the  devil,'  the  reader  we  think  will  be  willing  to  examine  critically 
the  context  and  scope  of  Rom.  7:  14—24. 

The  previous  doctrine  of  the  epistle  concerning  the  law,  is  set  forth  in  the 
following  passages :  '  By  the  deeds  of  law,  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his 
sight;  for  by  the  law  is  the  knowledye  of  sin.^  Chap.  3:  20.  '  If  they  which 
are  of  the  law  be  heirs,  faith  is  made  void,  and  the  promise  made  of  none 
effect ;  because  the  law  worketh  wrath.^  4:  14,  15.  '  The  law  entered  that 
the  offense  might  abound.''  5 :  20.     In  accordance  with  these  views  of  the 


SALVATION   FROM   SIN.  168 

effect  and  design  of  the  law,  in  the  sixth  chapter  the  apostle  closes  his  expo- 
sition of  salvation  from  sin  by  the  gospel,  with  the  following  declaration : 
'  Sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you  ;  for  ye  [i.  e.  as  many  as  were  baj:- 
tized  into  Christ,  see  ver.  3]  are  not  under  the  laiv,  hut  under  grace  f  (6: 
14  ;)  as  though,  if  they  were  under  law  there  would  be  no  hope  of  deliver- 
ance from  sin.  These  are  the  views  which  are  discussed  and  fully  explained 
in  the  seventh  and  a  part  of  the  eighth  chapter.  The  substance  of  the  first 
six  verses  of  the  seventh  chapter  may  be  stated  thus : — '  The  law  is  our 
husband  while  we  are  in  the  flesh,  and  the  only  offspring  of  this  first  mar- 
riage is  sin.  Christ  is  our  husband,  when  we  are  baptized  into  him,  and  the 
offspring  of  this  second  marriage  is  righteousness.  We  cannot  have  both 
husbands  at  once.  Death  to  the  law  must  precede  marriage  with  Christ. 
Accordingly,  we  that  believe,  are  dead  to  the  law,  by  baptism  into  the  death 
of  Christ.'  In  the  7th  verse  the  apostle  commences  a  vindication  of  the  law. 
In  view  of  the  foregoing  doctrine,  that  sin  is  the  fruit  of  marriage  with  tho 
law,  some  might  say  that  the  law  itself  is  sin.  But  Paul  insists  that  the 
evil  nature  of  the  offspring  in  this  case  is  not  to  be  attributed  to  the  husband, 
but  to  the  wife.  The  law  is  holy,  just,  and  good,  but  the  subjects  of  it  being 
filled  with  the  spirit  of  sin,  only  make  the  law  an  occasion  of  aggravated  in- 
iquity. Ver.  13.  Here  commences  the  disputed  paragraph,  vers.  14 — 25: 
^For  we  know  that  the  law  is  spiritual ;  but  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin. 
....  The  good  that  I  would,  I  do  not ;  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not, 
that  I  do,'  &c.  It  is  plain  that  the  apostle  is  here  giving  the  reason  for  the 
fact  that  the  law  produces  sin.  That  reason  is  the  opposition  which  exists 
between  a  carnal  nature  and  the  law.  A  marriage  betvfeen  them  brhigs  forth 
sin  and  death,  because  the  parties  are  '  unequally  yoked.'  '  The  law  is 
spiritual,  but  I  am  carnal ;  of  course  the  fruit  of  a  union  between  me  and 
the  law  must  be  strife  and  irritation,  resulting  in  aggravated  sin  and  ultimate 
despair  on  my  part,  though  the  law  is  holy,  just  and  good.'  Paul's  supposed 
confession,  then,  is  actually  a  description  of  the  misery  of  a  soul  married  to 
the  law.  Now  we  know  that  a  person  in  that  state  is  not  a  Christian  ;  for, 
to  be  married  to  the  law  and  to  Christ  at  the  same  time,  would  be  that  very 
spiritual  polygamy  which  in  the  first  verses  of  the  chapter  is  expressly  con- 
demned. Moreover  in  the  4th,  5th,  and  6th  verses,  the  apostle  plainly  and 
repeatedly  speaks  of  his  own  state,  and  that  of  those  whom  he  addressed,  as 
opposite  to  the  law  state  which  he  afterwards  describes.  '  Ye  are  become  dead 
to  the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ.  When  we  tvere  [past  tense]  in  the  flesh, 
the  motions  of  sins,  which  were  by  the  law,  [i.  e.  those  very  motions  which 
are  described  in  verses  14 — 25,]  did  work  in  our  members  to  bring  forth 
fruit  unto  death.  But  now  tve  are  delivered  from  the  laiv^  &c.  Paul,  then, 
was  not,  at  the  time  he  wrote  the  epistle,  under  the  law,  and  therefore  did 
not  describe  his  experience  as  a  Christian,  in  the  paragraph  in  question.  He 
uses  the  present  tense  in  that  paragraph,  because  he  is  not  relating  historical 
facts,  but  is  illustrating  a  perpetual  principle,  without  reference  to  time. — 
The  present  tense  and  first  person  are  frequently  used  in  such  illustrations, 
because  they  are  convenient  and  forcible.  The  actual  experience  of  Paul 
as  a  Christian,  is  fully  exhibited  in  the  eighth  chapter,  which  begins  thus — > 


164  SALVATION   FROM   SIN. 

*  There  is  therefore  now  NO  condemnation  to  them  which  are  in  Christ  Je- 
sus!' The  intelligent  reader  will  perceive,  by  examining  this  chapter  and 
comparmg  it  with  the  seventh,  that  the  peace  of  the  second  marriage  is  the 
exact  reverse  of  the  misery  of  the  first. 

(2.)  The  following  passage  is  often  quoted  as  an  instance  in  which  Paul 
confessed  sin:  ^  Not  as  though  I  had  already  attained,  either  were  already 
perfect :  but  I  follow  after,  if  that  I  may  apprehend  that  for  which  also  I  am 
apprehended  of  Christ  Jesus.  Brethren,  I  count  not  myself  to  have  ajypre- 
hended^  &c.  Phil.  3:  12,  13.  But  we  shall  see  by  consulting  the  context, 
that  Paul  is  wholly  misunderstood  by  those  who  take  the  passage  by  itself 
and  construe  it  as  an  acknowledgment  of  rnoral  imperfection.  In  the  pre- 
ceding verses  Paul  says,  '  I  count  all  things  but  loss  .  .  .  that  I  may  know 
him  and  the  poiver  of  his  resurrectmi,  and  the  felloivship  of  his  sufferings^ 
being  made  conformable  to  his  death  ;  if  by  any  means  I  might  attain  unto 
i^Q  resurrection  of  the  dead :  [here  begins  the  supposed  confession:]  not 
as  though  I  had  already  attained,  either  were  already  perfect.'  It  is  obvious 
that  '  the  resurrection  of  the  dead^  not  perfect  holiness,  is  to  be  understood 
as  the  object  of  the  verb  '  attained'  in  this  sentence  ;  so  that  the  first  clause 
certainly  is  not  a  confession  of  sin,  but  simply  of  a  state  of  mortality.  But 
in  what  sense  does  Paul  say,  ^  Not 'as  though  I  were  already  j?e?/(ecf.^  We 
must  find  an  answer  by  looking  back  and  noticing  what  he  was  striving  to 
attain.  He  comited  all  things  but  loss,  that  he  'might  know  the  power  of 
Christ's  resurrection,  and  the  fellowship  of  his  siff'erings,  being  made  con- 
formable to  his  death,"*  He  was  not  perfect  then  in  this  sense,  namely,  he 
had  not  yet  entered  into  full  fellowship  with  Christ's  death  and  resurrection. 
Does  this  imply  that  he  was  a  sinner  ?  If  so,  it  imphes  also  that  Christ 
himself  was  a  suiner,  before  he  died  and  entered  into  immortality.  The 
word  perfect  is  used  in  three  instances  with  reference  to  Christ,  evidently  in 
the  very  sense  in  Avhich  it  is  used  in  this  confession.  '  Go,  tell  that  fox,' 
said  Jesus,  '  Behold,  I  do  cures  to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  the  third  day  I 
^h.^\>Q perfected :'  [i.  e.  by  the  death  of  the  cross.]  Luke  13:  32.  'It 
became  liim  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  for  whom  are  all  things,  in  bringing 
many  sons  unto  glory,  to  make  the  captain  of  their  salvation  per/ec^  through 
sufferings.^  Heb.  2:  10.  '  Though  he  were  a  son,  yet  learned  he  obedience 
by  the  things  which  he  suffered  ;  and  being  made  perfect,  he  became  the 
author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all  them  that  obey  him.'  Heb.  5:  8,  9.  Now 
no  one  supposes  that  Christ  was  less  than  perfectly  holy,  while  he  was  on 
earth.  Yet  these  passages  plamly  teach  that  he  was  in  some  sense  '  made 
perfect'  by  suffering,  and  consequently  that  in  some  sense  he  was  not  perfect 
till  his  death.  Previous  to  that  event  then,  he  might  have  said,  as  well  as 
Paul,  '  Not  as  though  I  had  already  attained,  either  were  already  perfect.' 
And  on  the  other  hand  Paul,  as  well  as  Christ,  "notAvithstanding  this  confes- 
sion, could  claim  to  be  in  another  sense  perfect ;  as  in  fact  he  does  a  few 
verses  after,  where  he  says,  'Let  us,  as  many  as  hQj^erfect,  be  thus  minded.' 

The  truth  is,  Paul  kncAV  he  was  '  apprehended  of  Christ'  for  all  that  Christ 
had  himself  attained,  viz.,  the  resurrection  of  soul  and  body ;  and  though 
he  was  already  saved  fi'om  sin,  he  did  not  count  himself  perfect  by  full  fel- 


SALVATION  FROM   SIN.  165 

lowsliip  with  those  sufferings  which  made  Christ  perfect,  but  acknowledged 
in  opposition  to  those  '  who  said  the  resurrection  was  past  already,'  (2  Tim. 
2:  18,)  that  he  was  yet  '  following  after,'  looking,  as  he  says  a  few  verses 
below  the  passage  in  question,  '  for  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  change 
our  VILE  BODY.'  The  imperfection  w^hich  he  acknowledges,  so  far  as  it  re- 
lated to  spiritual  character,  was  a  deficiency,  not  of  holiness,  but  of  experi- 
ence. A  man  cannot  learn  patience  without  suifering.  Previous  to  the 
requisite  suffering,  imperfection  in  this  respect  is  not  voluntary  but  necessary. 
It  is  therefore  not  a  moral,  but  a  physical  or  natural  deficiency,  and  may  be 
predicated  of  one  who  is  perfectly  holy,  as  we  have  seen  it  was  predicated  of 
Christ. 

(3)  We  are  sometimes  referred  to  1  Cor.  9:  27,  as  evidence  that  Paul 
acknowledged  imperfection.  The  passage  with  its  context  stands  thus: 
'  I  therefore  so  run,  not  as  uncertainly ;  so  fight  I,  not  as  one  that  beateth 
the  air :  but  I  keep  under  my  body,  and  bring  it  into  subjection ;  lest  that 
hy  any  means,  tvhen  I  have  preached  to  others,  I  myself  should  he  a  cast- 
moay.*  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  this  can  be  tortured  into  any  thing  like  a 
confession  of  sin.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  actually  an  assertion  of  faithful- 
ness. In  order  that  the  passage  may  accord  with  the  common  views  of  the 
seventh  chapter  of  Romans,  and  with  the  experience  of  imperfectionists,  it 
must  be  reversed  thus  :  '  I  run  uncertainly,  I  fight  as  one  that  beateth  the 
air,  and  I  do  not  keep  my  body  under,  but  am  frequentty  brought  into  sub- 
jection to  it.'  The  most  that  can  fairly  be  said  of  it  is,  that  it  indicates  the 
existence  of  some  fear  in  the  apostle's  mind  that  lie  might  be  a  '  castaway.' 
But  even  this  is  by  no  means  a  necessary  construction.  A  soldier  in  a  be- 
sieged fortress  might  say,  '  I  keep  within  the  walls,  lest  I  should  be  slain  by 
the  enemies'  artillery,'  without  expressing  any  fear  or  suggesting  any  prob- 
abihty  that  he  would  actually  be  slain.  .     '      -m  s    . 

(4.)  Paul's  account  of  the  '  thorn  m  his  flesh,'  w^hich  the  Lord  gave  him, 
'  lest  he  should  be  exalted  above  measure,'  (2  Cor.  12:  7,)  is  often  cited  as 
a  confession  of  imperfection.  It  is  indeed  an  acknowledgment  of  weakness, 
and  of  a  certain  liability  to  sin  ;  which  liability  however  was  provided  for  and 
extinguished  by  the  means  which  God  employed  in  the  case.  Paul  does  not 
say  that  he  was  exalted  above  measure,  but  on  the  contrary,  that  God  took 
measures  to  keep  him  from  being  so.  Doubtless  those  measures  were  sue- 
cessful.  The  thorn  in  the  flesh  certainly  was  not  in  itself  something  sinful  in 
him.  It  was  '  a  messenger  of  Satan'  sent,  not  to  lead  him  into  sin,  but  to 
'buffet''  (i.  e.  to  afflict)  him.  He  besought  the  Lord  that  it  might  depart 
from  him,  and  the  answer  was,  '  My  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee  :  for  my 
strength  is  made  perfect  in  weakness.'  The  thorn  then  was  the  harbinger, 
not  of  sin,  but  of  sufficiency  and  perfection.  So  thought  Paid.  '  Most 
gladly  therefore,'  says  he,  '  will  I  rather  glory  in  my  infirmities,  [certainly 
not  in  sin,]  that  the  power  of  Christ  may  rest  upon  me.' 

(5.)  The  following  passage  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  a  confession  of 
present  sinfulness :  '  This  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  worthy  of  all  acceptation, 
that  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners,  of  whom  I  am  chief* 
1  Tim.  1:  15.     The  context  plainly  shows  that  the  apostle  here  refers,  not 


166  SALVATION   FROM   SIN. 

to  his  character  after  he  became  a  Christian,  but  to  his  wickedness  in  perse- 
cuting the  church.  See  ver.  13.  '  Howbeit/  he  continues,  '  for  this  cause 
I  obtained  [past  tense]  mercy,  that  in  me  first  Jesus  Christ  might  show  forth 
all  long-suffering,'  &c.  His  pre-eminent  wickedness  in  '  breathing  out 
threatenings  and  slaughter'  against  the  church,  rendered  him  fit  to  be  an 
example  of  the  greatness  of  God's  mercj.  In  respect  to  his  state  as  a 
Christian,  he  says  just  before,  that  Christ  counted  him  '  faithful ;'  which  is 
altogether  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  he  was  at  the  same  time  the  chief 
of  sinners.  #- 

-% 

Thus  we  have  noticed  all  the  passages  in  Paul's  writings  which  are  com- 
monly adduced  to  prove  him  a  smner  by  his  own  direct  testimony,  and  we 
have  found  in  every  one  of  them  proof  to  the  contrary. 

As  a  sequel  to  this  branch  of  evidence,  let  the  reader  take  a  survey  of  all 
the  prayers  which  Paul  represents  himself  as  offering.  In  almost  every 
epistle  he  gives  samples  of  his  petitions ;  and  if  he  had  been  habitually  as 
abundant  in  confessions  of  sin  as  modern  imperfectionists,  he  would  certainly 
have  left  some  specimens  on  record.  We  venture  to  predict,  however,  that 
nothing  of  the  kind  will  be  found. 

II.    SPECIFIC    CHARGES    AGAINST    PAUL. 

(1.)  His  contention  with  Barnabas.  The  account  of  this  affair  is  as  fol- 
lows : — '  Some  days  after,  Paul  said  unto  Barnabas,  Lotus  go  again  and  visit 
our  brethren  in  every  city  where  we  have  preached  the  word  of  God,  and 
see  how  they  do.  And  Barnabas  determined  to  take  with  them  John,  whose 
surname  was  Mark.  But  Paul  thought  it  not  good  to  take  him  with  them, 
who  departed  from  them  from  Pamphylia,  and  went  not  with  them  to  the 
work.  And  the  contention  was  so  sharp  between  them,  that  they  departed 
asunder  one  from  the  other :  and  so  Barnabas  took  Mark,  and  sailed  unto 
Cyprus.  And  Paul  chose  Silas,  and  departed,  being  recommended  by  the 
brethren  unto  the  grace  of  God.'  Acts  15:  36 — 40.  We  observe  upon  this, 
in  the  first  place,  that  there  is  no  certain  evidence  that  either  Paul  or  Barna- 
bas sinned.  A  mere  difference  of  judgment,  wisely  permitted  for  the  purpose 
of  separating  thein,  may  have  been  perfectly  consistent  with  unity  of  heart. 
*■  The  contention  was  so  sharp  between  them  [not  that  they  abused  each  other 
with  words  or  blows,  but]  that  they  departed  asunder  one  from  the  other,' 
and  probably  by  mutual  consent,  in  peace.  But  we  observe  further,  that 
so  far  as  there  is  any  probable  proof  that  either  sinned,  it  goes  to  impeach 
the  character  of  Barnabas  only.  John,  about  whom  the  contention  arose, 
was  Barnabas'  nephew,  (see  Col.  4:  10,)  who  doubtless  was  influenced  by 
partiality  for  him,  as  his  kinsman,  and  '  determined  to  take  him  with  them,' 
without  first  consulting  Paul,  or  heeding  his  counsel  afterwards.  No  reason 
is  given  for  Barnabas'  determination  ;  whereas  Paul  '  thought  it  not  good'  to 
take  John,  because  he  had  once  deserted  them.  It  is  plain  that  Paul  acted 
conscientiously  in  the  matter.  Nothing  but  prejudice  or  carelessness  can 
discover  the  least  evidence  in  these  circumstances,  that  he  departed  from  in- 
tegrity;  while  candor  finds  fresh  proof  of  his  wisdom  and  firmness. 

(2.)  His  anathema  upon  the  high  priest.    '  Paul,  earnestly  beholding  the 


SALVATION   FROM   SIN.  167 

council,  said,  Men' and  brethren,  I  have  lived  in  all  good  conscience  before 
God  until  tliis  day.  And  the  high  priest  Ananias  commanded  them  that  stood 
by  him  to  smite  him  on  the  mouth.  Then  saith  Paul  unto  him,  God  shall 
smite  thee,  thou  whited  wall :  for  sittest  thou  to  judge  me  after  the  law,  and 
commandest  me  to  be  smitten  contrary  to  the  law  ?  And  they  that  stood 
by  said,  Revilest  thou  God's  high  priest  ?  Then  said  Paul,  I  wist  not, 
brethren,  that  he  was  the  high  priest :  for  it  is  written,  thou  shalt  not  speak 
evil  of  the  ruler  of  thy  people.'  Acts  23:  1 — 5.  There  was  manifestly  no 
sin  in  the  mistake  which  Paul  made  respecting  the  official  character  of  his 
abuser.  He  acknowledged  no  sin,  though  he  showed  a  perfect  and  manly 
readiness  to  acknowledge  a  mistake,  as  well  as  a  conscientious  self-possession, 
in  quoting  scripture  for  the  acknowledgment.  The  chief  question  is,  have  we 
evidence  that  he  was  sinfully  ^''^g^J  iii  this  affair?  Admitting  that  his 
words  bespeak  anger,  we  assert  that  he  was  not  '  angry  without  a  cause.^ 
The  unrighteous  conduct  of  the  high  priest  called  for  righteous  indignation. 
Anger  is  not  in  every  case  sinful.  See  Mark  3:  5,  Eph.  4:  26.  Paul's 
accusers  must  therefore  show  that  he  was  unreasonably  angry.  This  cannot 
be  shown  from  his  language  in  the  case.  He  neither  smote  the  high  priest, 
nor  threatened  to  smite  him.  '  Grod  shall  smite  thee,  thou  whited  wall.' 
Is  this  an  expression  of  a  revengeful  spirit  ?  It  is  only  a  calm  and  true  pre- 
diction of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God.  He  used  the  language  of  Christ 
in  the  severe  appellation  which  he  gave  the  high  priest.  •  See  Matt.  23:  27. 
He  did  not  avenge  himself,  but  recognized  the  truth,  that  vengeance  is  the 
Lord's. 

We  may  remark  in  general  upon  these  charges,  and  upon  all  others  of  the 
kind,  (if  others  have  been  made,)  that  they  are  mere  private  judgments, 
unsupported  by  Paul's  confession,  (who  must  be  supposed  to  have  known  his 
own  character  better  than  his  accusers,  and  to  have  been  ingenuous  enough 
to  confess  sin,  if  he  had  committed  it,)  and  unsupported  by  the  verdict  of 
the  inspired  writers  who  have  recorded  the  acts  for  which  he  is  condemned. 
Moreover,  this  method  of  trying  character  by  private  judgment  of  external 
actions,  without  hearing  the  defense  of  the  accused,  might  as  fairly  be  used 
to  prove  sin  upon  Christ  as  upon  P^ul.  The  external  form  of  Christ's  ac- 
tions was,  in  many  cases,  far  from  being  lovely — at  least  to  the  carnal  ap- 
prehensions of  the  Pharisees.  Our  belief  that  he  was  perfectly  holy,  certainly 
is  not  founded  on  our  perception  of  the  righteousness  of  every  particular 
transaction  of  his  life.  We  never  feel  that  there  is  any  occasion  for  us  to 
inquire  whether  he  did  right  or  wrong  in  this  or  that  particular  action — ■ 
whether  every  movement  of  his  body  and  mind  through  all  his  life,  was 
measured  and  determined  by  the  rule  and  plummet  of  theoretical  morality — 
whether  he  preached  and  labored  for  sinners  just  exactly  as  much  as  he  was 
able,  and  never  slept  the  fraction  of  a  second  too  much  or  too  little.  If  it 
were  necessary  to  go  through  such  a  process  of  scrutiny  before  we  could  law- 
fully believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  perfectly  holy,  we  might  well  despair  of 
ever  proving  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  But  all  such  questioning  is  ut- 
terly foreclosed,  as  every  man's  consciousness  must  testify,  by  the  simple 
fact  that  Jesus  Christ  was  proved  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  by  his  Father's 


168  SALVATION  FROM   SIN. 

power.  We  reverse  the  process.  Instead  of  arguing  that  he  was  the  Son 
of  God  because  his  external  actions  were  perfectly  holy,  we  argue  that  his 
external  actions  were  perfectly  holy  because  he  Avas  manifestly  the  Son  of 
God,  in  full  fellowship  with  his  Father.  Now  we  insist  that  Paul's  character 
ought  to  be  tried  by  a  similar  process.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  he  was  in 
spiritual  union  with  Christ,  it  ought  to  be  presumed^  unless  full  proof  to  the 
contrary  is  produced,  that  all  his  external  actions  were  righteous,  and  the 
'  evil  surmises'  of  irresponsible  accusers  ought  to  be  given  to  the  winds. 
III.  Paul's    views  of  his  own  character. 

(1.)  He  asserts  his  identity  with  Christ,  in  such  passages  as  the  follow- 
ing: '  It  pleased  God  .  .  .  io  reveal  his  Son  in  me.'*  Gal.  1:  15,  16.  'I 
am  crucified  Avith  Christ ;  nevertheless  I  live  ;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth 
in  me'  Gal.  2:  20.  'For  me  to  live  is  Christ.''  Phil.  1:  21.  '  We  are 
members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh  and  of  his  bones.''  Eph.  5:  30.  'We  have 
the  mind  of  Christ.'  1  Cor.  2:  16.  In  accordance  with  this  testimony,  he 
says  that  the  Galatians  received  him  '  as  an  angel  of  God,  even  as  Christ 
Jesus;'  (Gal.  4:  14;)  and  instead  of  rebuking  them  for  man-worship,  he 
rather  censures  them  for  not  continuing  thus  to  honor  him. 

(2.)  He  plainly  asserts  his  freedom  from  sin,  as  the  consequence  of  his 
union  with  Christ,  in  the  following  passages  :  '  How  shall  we  that  are  dead 
to  sin,  [i.  e.  by  baptism  into  Christ's  death,]  live  any  longer  therein  ?  Rom. 
6:  2.  '  The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  hath  made  me  free  from  the  latv  of  sin 
and  death.'  Rom.  8:  2.  '  Ye  are  witnesses,  and^od  also,  how  holily  and 
justly  and  unblamably  we  behaved  ourselves  among  you  that  believe.' 
1  Thess.  2:  10.  '  Griving  no  offense  in  any  thing,  that  the  ministry  be  not 
blamed :  but  in  all  things  appi'oving  ourselves  as  the  ministers  of  God,  in 
much  patience,  in  afflictions,  in  necessities,  in  distresses,  in  stripes,  in  im- 
prisonments, in  tumults,  in  watchings,  in  fastings.  By  pureness,  by  know- 
ledge, by  long-suffering,  by  kindness,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  love  unfeigned, 
by  the  word  of  truth,  by  the  power  of  God,  by  the  aymior  of  righteousness 
on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left.'  2  Cor.  6:  3 — 7.  '  Our  rejoicing  is  this, 
the  testimony  of  our  conscience  that  in  simplicity  and  godly  sinceiity,  not 
with  fleshly  ivisdom,  but  by  the  grace  of  Grod,  loe  have  had  our  conversation 
in  the  world.'  2  Cor.  1:  12. 

(3)  His  writings,  instead  of  being  filled  with  confessions  of  sin  and  un- 
faithfulness, every  where  a]pound  with  vindications  of  his  oivn  conduct,  bold 
assertions  of  his  righteousness,  and  appeals  fi'om  human  accusation  to  the 
judgment  of  God.  The  following  may  serve  as  examples :  '  We  have 
wronged  no  man,  we  have  defrauded  no  man.'  2  Cor.  7:  2.  'I  think  to  he 
bold  against  some  which  think  of  us  as  though  we  walked  according  to  the 
flesh  ;  for  though  we  walk  in  the  flesh,  we  do  not  war  after  the  flesh.'  2 Cor. 
10:  2,  3.  '  Our  exhortation  was  not  of  deceit,  nor  of  uncleanness,  nor  of 
guile  :  .  .  .  neither  at  any  time  used  we  flattering  words,  as  ye  know,  nor 
a  cloak  of  covotousness  ;  Qod  is  untness  :  nor  of  men  sought  we  glory,  nor 
t)f  you.'  1  Thess.  2:  3 — 6.  '  Ye  know  from  the  fii-st  day  that  I  came  into 
Asia,  after  what  manner  I  have  been  with  you  at  all  seasons,  serving  the 
Lord  with  all  humility  of  muid I  take  you  to  record  this  day  that  I 


SALVATION  FROM   SIN.  169 

am  pure  from  the  blood  of  all  men.'  Acts  20:  18 — 26.     *  It  is  a  very  small 

tiling  that  I  should  be  judged  of  you,  or  of  man's  judgment He  that 

judgeth  me  is  the  Lord.'  1  Cor.  4:  3 — 5. 

(4.)  He  constantly  proposes  his  own  life  as  a  perfect  example  for  imita- 
tion. '  I  beseech  you,'  says  he,  *  he  ye  followers  of  me.  For  this  cause 
have  I  sent  unto  you  Timothy,  .  .  .  who  shall  bring  you  into  remembrance 
of  my  ways  which  be  in  Christ.'  1  Cor.  4:  16.  'Be  ye  followers  of  me^  as 
I  also  am  of  Christ.'  1  Cor.  11:  1.  '  Brethren,  hefolloivers  together  of  me, 
and  mark  them  that  walk  so,  as  ye  have  us  for  an  ensample.'  Phil.  3:  17. 
*  Those  things  which  ye  have  both  learned  and  received,  and  heard  and  seen 
in  me,  do  ;  and  the  God  of  peace  shall  be  with  you.'  Phil.  4:  9.  Let  the 
reader  imagine  for  a  moment,  how  these  exhortations  would  sound  in  the 
mouth  of  one  who  was  in  the  condition  described  in  the  seventh  of  Romans. 
The  last  of  them  would  amount  to  this : — '  Ye  have  learned  and  received 
(viz.  in  Rom.  7:  7 — 25)  that  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin,  doing  the  evil 
that  I  condemn,  and  unable  to  do  the  good  which  my  conscience  enjoins. 
Follow  me  in  these  things ;  live  in  slavery  to  sin  as  I  do,  and  the  Crod  of 
peace  shall  he  with  yoiiP 

The  testimony  now  before  the  reader,  both  negative  and  positive,  should 
be  weighed  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  Paul  unreservedly  poached  ^e?'- 
fection  to  the  churches ;  (for  examples  see  2  Cor.  13:  9 — 11,  1  Thess.  5: 
23,  24  ;)  and  that  he  made  it  the  main  object  of  one  of  his  most  important 
epistles,  viz.  that  to  the  Hebrews,  to  exhibit  Christianity  as  a  dispensation 
of  perfect  holiness.  See  Heb.  5:  1,  6:  11—19,  10:  14—19,  &c. 

In  view  of  all  this  we  must  conclude,  either  that  Paul  was  filled  with  self- 
deception,  impenitence,  and  pride,  and  that  his  life  was  altogether  at  variance 
with  the  theory  which  he  preached,  or  that  he  was  a  genuine  example  of 
salvation  from  sin. 

VII.  Miscellaneous  objections  to  the  doctrine  of  salvation 
FROM  sin. 

Objection  1.  *  If  perfect  holiness  is  attained,  there  is  no  further  occasion 
for  repentance.^  Answer.  Repentance  is  genuine  only  when  it  results  in  the 
forsaking  of  sin.  That  periodical  repentance,  which  implies  continuance  in 
the  sins  repented  of,  is  most  horrible  hypocrisy.  The  doctrine  of  perfect 
holiness  does  indeed  discard  this  kind  of  repentance.  But  it  preaches  to  all 
sinners — and  that  too  with  a  sincerity  and  vehemence  which  belong  to  no 
other  doctrine — that  scriptural  repentance,  which  needs  '  not  to  he  repented 
of."*  2  Cor.  7:  10.  There  are  things  which,  though  it  is  very  necessary 
that  they  should  be  done  once,  ought  not  to  be  done  the  second  time.  For 
instance,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  the  farmer  should  plow  his  field  in  the 
spring.  But  he  would  be  a  very  foolish  man,  who  should  continue  plowing 
the  same  field  all  summer.  So,  thorough  repentance  is  essential  in  the  seed- 
time of  grace,  but  works  of  righteousness  must  follow,  or  the  harvest  of 
judgment  will  bring  no  reward.  They  who  repent  all  their  days,  because 
repentance  4S  good  in  its  season,  "^^11  be  obhged  to  say  at  last,  '  The  harvest 
is  past,  the  summer  is  ended,  and  we  are  not  saved.'  Paul  was  a  faithful 
21 


170  SALVATION  mOU  SIN. 

preacher  of  repentance  ;  yet  he  said  to  his  converts,  ^  Leaving  the  first  prin^ 
ciples  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  to  perfection,  not  laying  again 
the  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead  works ^^  &c.  Heb.  6:  1,  2. 

Obj.  2.  '  Perfect  hohness  is  inconsistent  with  growth  in  grace.^  Answer* 
This  objection  is  predicated  on  a  false  notion  of  the  nature  of  the  perfection 
which  we  advocate*  It  supposes  that  one  who  is  perfectly  holy,  is  necessa^ 
rily  free  from  all  infirmity,  and  has  received  all  the  strength  and  knowledge 
that  God  can  impart.  Whereas,  the  reader  will  perceive,  by  recurring  to 
the  second  and  fourth  Sections  under  the  head,  'PauVs  supposed  confessions/ 
that  one  may  be  perfect  in  holiness^  and  yet  imperfect  in  experience^  and 
subject  to  irifirmity^  We  mean  by  perfect  holiness,  (using  the  expression  in 
its  lowest  sense,)  simply  thsit purity  of  heart  which  gives  a  good  conscience* 
This  primary  state  is  attainable  by  mere  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 
It  is  in  fact  the  conmiunication  of  the  purity  and  good  conscience  of  Christ. 
It  may  therefore  be  received  instantaneously,  and  may  exist  in  us  antece- 
dently to  all  external  improvement  or  good  works.  There  is  no  difficulty  in 
conceiving  that  a  man  may  have  a  clean  heart  and  a  gopd  conscience,  and 
yet  be  very  imperfect  in  regard  to  his  understanding  and  corporeal  faculties 
and  affections.  Suppose  a  missionary,  in  urging  upon  a  savage  a  change  of 
life,  proposes  to  take  him  under  his  own  care  and  thoroughly  instruct  him  m 
all  the  ways  of  civilization.  When  the  savage  embraces  the  proposal,  and 
puts  himself  into  the  hands  of  the  missionary,  he  has  done  all  that  is  now 
required  of  him,  and  may  rightfully  have  a  good  conscience.  He  is  a  savage 
still,  in  every  thing  except  nis  heart;  but  he  is  not  to  be  blamed.  The 
missionary  does  not  condemn  him  for  his  uncouth  manners,  and  his  obtuse- 
ness  of  intellect.  He  may  now  enter  upon  the  course  of  discipline  necessary 
to  make  him  in  all  respects  a  civilized  man,  with  a  self-approving  heart.— 
By  this  illustration  it  may  be  seen  how  a  behever  may  be  free  from  sin  and 
condemnation  before  God,  and  yet  be  but  at  the  entrance  of  the  discipline 
necessary  to  complete  sanctification.  The  difference  between  the  two  cases 
is  altogether  in  favor  of  the  believer :  for  whereas  the  missionary  can  only 
express  his  approbation  of  the  converted  savage  by  words,  Christ  gives  the 
believer  his  own  pure  spirit  and  good  conscience,  and  bears  witness  not 
merely  to  him,  but  in  him,  that  his  sins  are  taken  away.  Between  this 
perfection  of  the  heart.,  and  that  glorified  perfection  which  Christ  attained  by 
the  cross,  and  which  Paul  set  before  himself  as  the  hope  of  his  calling,  the 
way  is  long  and  difficult  enough  to  make  occasion  for  all  the  diligence  and 
energy  which  the  most  laborious  legalist  can  desire.  Let  the  reader  judge 
for  himself  whether  a  good  or  an  evil  conscience  is  most  favorable  to  alacrity 
and  success  in  the  pursuit  of  sanctification. 

Obj.  3.  '  The  Christian  life  is  represented  in  scripture  as  a  warfare,^ 
Answer.  It  is  indeed  a  warfare,  but  not  a  series  of  defeats.  It  is  not 
necessary  that  we  should  be  overcome  by  the  devil,  in  order  that  we  may 
resist  him.  Christ,  while  he  was  in  the  flesh,  was  engaged  in  tremendous 
conflicts  with  the  powers  of  darkness  ;  yet  he  was  without  sin.  Paul  called 
the  warfare  of  his  Christian  life  a  *GOOD  fight'— an  appellation  certainly  not 
befitting  such  a  series  of  defeats  as  constitute  the  warfare  of  modem  profes- 


eALVATION  FROM  SIN.  171 

sors  of  Christianity.  Our  theory  of  Christian  life,  while  it  equips  the 
spiritual  soldier  with  a  pure  heart  and  a  good  conscience  at  the  outset,  nev- 
ertheless does  not  discharge  him  from  service.  To  keei?  his  heart  pure  and 
his  conscience  good,  in  the  midst  of  a  world  of  pollution  and  accusation — to 
follow  Paul  and  Christ  in  the  way  to  the  glory  of  the  resurrection — will  cost 
him  many  and  sore  conflicts  with  his  own  corrupted  propensities,  and  Avith 
'  principalities  and  powers,  and  spiritual  wickedness  in  high  places.'  "We 
are  not  of  those  who  imagine  that  the  work  of  winning  the  glory  of  God, 
and  the  rest  of  heaven,  is  accomplished  in  a  moment.  We  believe  that  all 
who  are  in  any  stage  of  spiritual  life  short  of  the  full  resurrection  of  the  body, 
have  in  their  own  compound  nature,  two  opposing  elements,  which  will  war 
against  each  other  till  that  resurrection  is  attained.  '  If  Christ  be  in  you,' 
says  Paul,  '  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin,  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of 
righteousness  ;'  (Rom.  8:  10  ;)  and  again,  '  The  flesh  lusteth  against  the 
spirit,  and  the  spirit  against  the  flesh ;  and  these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the 
other,  so  that  ye  cannot  do  the  things  that  ye  would;'  i.  e.  the  desires  either 
-of  the  flesh  or  of  the  spirit  must  be  mortified.  Gal.  5:  17,  A  Christian  is 
one  who  '  walks  in  the  spirit ;'  and  the  apostle  says  expressly  that  such 
^ shall  not  fulfill  the  lusts  of  the  flesh.''  Nevertheless  the  lusts  of  the  flesh 
will  remain  as  long  as  the  body  is  dead^  and  of  course  the  conflict  betweeii 
the  flesh  and  the  spirit  will  remain.  An  enemy  may  remain  on  the  borders 
of  an  empire,  and  trouble  the  inhabitants  with  much  hard  fighting,  and  yet 
never  conquer  the  empire,  or  even  win  a  battle. 

Obj.  4.  '  I  have  seen  an  end  of  all  perfection,  but  thy  commandment  is 
exceeding  broad.'*  Answer.  1.  The  assertion  in  the  first  clause  of  this 
quotation,  however  true  it  may  have  been  in  the  mouth  of  David,  is  not  truo 
in  the  mouths  of  modern  objectors  to  the  doctrine  of  holiness.  Even  though 
they  may  find  an  end  to  the  perfection  of  all  the  Old  Testament  saints,  and 
though  they  may  think  they  have  seen  an  end  of  the  perfection  of  all  modern 
claimants  of  holiness,  yet  they  have  not  seen  an  end  of  the  perfection  of 
Jesus  Christ,  of  Paul,  or  of  the  mature  part  of  the  primitive  church, 
2.  Though  we  should  admit  that  the  law  is  as  broad  as  the  objector  conceives 
it  to  be^  yet  we  might  safely  say  that  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus  is 
still  broader.  But  some  things  may  be  said  to  show  that  the  law,  as  viewed 
through  the  new  covenant,  is  not  so  '  exceeding  broad'  as  to  place  any  very 
formidable  difficulty  in  the  way  of  one  who  wishes  to  be  holy.  A  thing  may 
be  '  exceeding  broad'  in  one  view  of  it,  and  exceedingly  narrow  in  another. 
For  instance  a  tree,  surveyed  from  a  point  abovo  its  branches,  would  present 
a  wide  circle  of  unconnected  leaves  and  twigs,  which  the  inspector  might  well 
despair  of  ever  being  able  to  reckon  and  minutely  describe.  While  the 
same  tree,  viewed  from  a  station  where  its  trunk  could  be  seen,  would  be  a 
very  simple  object,  easily  comprehended  by  the  mind,  and  easily  described. 
So  the  law,  viewed  in  all  the  details  of  its  external  development  and  with  all 
the  ceremonial  additions  of  the  Jewish  economy,  is  vast,  complicated,  in« 
comprehensible,  presenting  a  hopeless  task  to  the  will,  and  a  perpetual 
stumbling-block  to  the  conscience.  But  the  same  law,  viewed  in  its  spiritual 
principle,  is  so  simple  that  a  child  may  comprehend  it.      It  was  one  maia 


172  SALVATION  FROM  SIN. 

object  of  Christianity  to  call  off  the  minds  and  consciences  of  men  from  the 
branches  of  the  law  to  its  root.  Christ  condensed  all  the  requirements  of  the 
law  and  the  prophets  into  the  simple  rule,  '  Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men 
should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them.'  Matt.  7:  12.  Paul  said,  ^He  that 
loveth  another,  hath  fulfilled  the  law:  for  this,  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adul- 
tery, Thou  shalt  not  kUl,  Thou  shalt  not  steal.  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false 
witness,  Thou  shalt  not  covet ;  and  if  there  be  any  other  commandment,  it  is 
hrieflt/  comprehended  in  this  saying.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself. 
Love  worketh  no  ill  to  his  neighbor  ;  therefore  love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the 
law.'  Eom.  13:  8 — 10.  And  again,  'AH  the  law  is  fulfilled  in  one  ivord, 
even  in  this,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.'  Gal.  5: 14.  Thus  the 
law,  viewed  through  the  new  covenant,  instead  of  being  '  exceeding  broad,' 
is  as  narrow  as  one  little  word,  love.  The  question  before  the  mind  of  one 
who  seeks  after  holiness,  is  not  whether  he  can  duly  observe  all  the  ordinan- 
ces of  the  Jewish  or  Christian  ritual,  or  whether  he  can  immediately  perform 
all  the  good  works  which  mpy  be  conceived  of  as  resulting  from  the  principle 
of  the  law,  when  it  is  perfectly  developed  in  external  action,  but  simply 
whether  he  can  love.  If  he  does  this  one  thing,  the  word  of  God  authorizes 
liis  conscience  to  be  content;  for  Move  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.'  This 
root  of  all  righteousness,  this  cure  for  the  conscience,  is  provided  for  in  the 
gospel,  not  by  the  application  of  a  written  commandment,  but  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  that  believes,  loves,  not  by  the  power  of  his  own 
will,  but  because  '  the  love  of  God  is  shed  aJjroad  in  his  heart  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.'  Thus  Christ,  by  first  concentrating  the  whole  law  into  the  simple 
requirement  of  love,  and  then  converting  that  requirement  into  a  spiritual 
gift,  is  '  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  thatbelieveth.' 

Vni.  Directions  to  those  who  are  seeking  salvation  from  sin. 

The  gospel  offers  salvation  from  sin  as  a  free  gift.  Of  course  the  first 
thing  to  be  done  by  one  who  seeks  that  salvation,  is  to  clear  away  the  rub- 
bish of  his  oivn  works.  He  must  heartily  repent,  not  only  of  his  manifest 
sins,  but  of  his  supposed  works  of  righteousness.  All  works  that  are  not 
the  fruit  of  God's  life  in  the  soul  are  'dead  works, ^  utterly  loathsome  to  one 
whose  eyes  are  open  to  spiritual  truth.  Let  the  inquirer  settle  it  in  his 
heart  that  'there  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is  God  ;'  that  the  righteousness 
of  every  beuig  in  the  universe,  from  the  highest  archangel  to  the  lowest 
saint,  is  the  righteousness  of  God  ;  and  of  course  that  he  is  not  to  make  him- 
self righteous  by  working,  but  is  to  be  made  righteous  by  receiving  grace  ; 
and  he  will  see  the  necessity  of  setting  his  face  toward  the  at-one-ment : 
spiritual  union  with  God,  instead  of  '  doing  duty,'  will  become  the  object  of 
his  efforts  and  hopes. 

In  order  to  attain  this  union,  its  nature  must  first  be  clearly  ascertained. 
We  will  therefore  look  at  some  specimens  of  Bible  language  concerning  the 
condition  of  those  who  attained  it  in  the  apostolic  age.  Paul  says — '  I  am 
crucified  with  Christ :  nevertheless  I  live  ;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me.^ 
Here  is  the  reconcihation  embodied — God  and  man  made  one.  We  must  not 
explain  away  this  testimony,  by  calling  the  language  figurative.  Spirits 
can  dwell  in  each  other,  if  bodies  cannot.    Paul  means  that  the  spirit  of 


SALVATION  PROM  SIN.  173 

Christ  (which  is  the  same  as  Christ  himself)  actually  lived  and  wrought 
righteousness  in  him.  In  another  place  he  says,  '  If  any  man  have  not  the 
spirit  of  Christy  he  is  none  of  his  ;'  and  then  immediately  adds,  '  If  Christ 
he  inyou^  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin,'  &c. ;  (Rom.  8:  9,  10 ;)  from 
which  it  is  evident,  that  to  have  the  spirit  of  Christ,  is  the  same  thing  as  to 
have  Christ  himself  indwelling.  The  church  is  the  'body  of  Christ:'  and 
as  a  man's  life  dwells  in  every  member  of  his  body,  so  Christ  dwells  in  every 
member  of  his  church.  *  Know  ye  not  your  own  selves,'  says  the  apostle, 
*  how  that  Christ  is  in  you  except  ye  be  reprobates  V  2  Cor.  13:5.  The 
condition,  then,  for  which  the  inquirer  seeks,  is  one  in  which  he  can  truly 
say — '  Christ  liveth  in  me.'  The  necessary  consequence  of  that  condition  is 
perfect  holiness,  because  Christ  is  perfectly  holy. 

The  mind  must  not  be  embarrassed  here  by  any  imagination  that  a  spirit- 
ual union  with  Christ  is  inconsistent  with  free  agency.  The  power  of  uilling 
is  that  which  distinguishes  a  free  agent  from  a  machine.  Now  the  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  soul,  instead  of  taking  away  or  diminishing  the  power  of 
willing,  greatly  increases  it.  '  God  worketh  in  [believers]  to  will,'  as  well 
as  to  do.  Their  power  of  willing,  therefore,  is  proportioned,  not  as  in  other 
men  to  their  own  natural  energy,  but  to  his  omnipotence.  The  influence  of 
motives  is  not  inconsistent  with  free  agency.  If  a  man's  own  will  goes  with 
his  acts,  he  is  a  free  agent,  however  mighty  may  be  the  influences  which 
persuade  him.  Christ  dwelling  in  believers,  persuades  them  to  righteousness, 
not  only  by  external  motives,  but  by  spiritual  power  applied  directly  to  their 
will.  They  are  free,  because  their  will  is  not  superseded,  but  quickened 
and  actuated  by  Christ's  will. 

Moreover,  we  may  appeal  to  a  multitude  of  admitted  facts  to  prove  that 
one  spirit  may  dwell  in  another,  and  one  will  actuate  another,  without  inter- 
fering with  free  agency.  God  dwelt  in  Christ,  and  determined  all  his  ac- 
tions. And  yet  was  he  not  free  ?  Who  does  not  believe  that  the  prophets 
were  free  agents  when  they  '  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost'? 
Was  Judas  any  the  less  free,  because  '  Satan  entered  into  him'?  There  is 
not  a  sincere  professor  of  the  common  faith  of  the  churches,  who  is  not  some- 
times conscious  of  the  spiritual  control  of  God.  If  that  control,  partially  and 
occasionally  exerted,  is  consistent  with  free  agency,  why  may  it  not  become 
perfect  and  perpetual,  without  making  the  subjects  of  it  machines  ?  There 
is  not  a  professor  in  all  the  churches,  whether  sincere  or  not,  who  does  not 
expect  to  be  kept  from  sin  in  heaven  by  the  power  of  God.  If  this  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be  consistent  with  free  agency,  the  principle  we  insist  upon  is 
admitted — Christ  may  dwell  in  us  and  actuate  our  wills,  consistently  with  our 
freedom,  here  as  well  as  in  heaven. 

We  now  come  to  the  main  question — How  is  this  union,  by  which  Christ 
dwells  in  the  soul,  and  so  saves  it  from  sin,  to  be  effected  ?  The  witnesses 
of  the  New  Testament  answer  with  one  voice — by  believing  the  gospel. 
We  will  expound  this  answer,  by  showing,  first,  what  the  gospel  is ;  and, 
secondly,  what  it  is  to  beheve. 

I.  The  gospel  is  a  proclamation  issuing  from  God.  Human  language  and 
utterance,  the  preaching  and  writings  of  the  apostles,  are  employed  as  its 


1 74  SALVATION  FROM  SIN. 

vehicles,  but  in  its  essence,  it  is  not  '  word  nor  speech,  but  power, ^  It  is  a 
'  voice  that  shakes  heaven  and  earth.'  Heb.  12:  26.  It  is  a  word  of  the 
same  nature  as  that  which  ^  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,' 
(2  Cor.  4:  6,)  which  cast  out  devils,  healed  the  sick,  and  raised  the  dead. 
It  is  a  spiritual  energy,  emanating  from  the  Almighty.  Whoever  then  mere- 
ly believes  certain  thoughts  atlout  the  gospel,  which  are  excited  in  his  mind 
by  reading  the  Bible,  or  by  hearing  a  preacher,  without  discerning  the  voice 
of  the  spirit  of  God,  cannot  be  said  to  believe  the  gospel.  It  is  only  when 
the  message  is  received  as  from  G-od,  and  its  spiritual  energy  is  apprehen- 
ded, that  it  is  '  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation.'  Rom.  1:  16.  'When  ye 
received,'  says  Paul,  '  the  word  of  God,  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  received  it 
not  as  the  word  of  meriy  hut,  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  ivord  of  €fod,  which 
effectually/  tvorketh  also  in  you  that  believe.''  1  Thess.  2:  13. 

But  again ;  the  gospel  is  a  proclamation  of  G'od''s  reconciliation  with  man 
hy  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ.  We  need  not  here  speculate  upon  the  exact 
nature  of  the  enmity  which  existed  between  God  and  man,  before  the  atone- 
ment, nor  on  the  exact  mode  of  the  reconciliation.  It  is  sufficient  that  we 
know  that  the  offense  and  condemnation,  which  commenced  with  Adam's 
transgression,  which  came  upon  all  men,  and  which  was  increased  instead 
of  diminished  by  the  law,  Avas  taken  away  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lamb  of 
God ;  so  that '  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life.'  Rom. 
5:  11 — 21.  '  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  to  himself,  not  im- 
puting their  trespasses  unto  them.'    2  Cor.  5:  19. 

It  must  be  distinctly  understood  that  the  reconciliation  which  the  gospel 
thus  proclaims  is  di^fact  that  has  actually  taken  place,  not  a  proposal  from 
God  conditional  on  man's  repentance  and  faith.  It  is  a  reconciliation  on  the 
part  of  God,  not  with  believers  only,  but  with  the  whole  race  of  man.  *  Christ 
IS  the  propitiation  for  our  sins ;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world.'  1  John  2:  2.  We  do  not  say  that  all  men  are  reconciled 
to  God,  but  that  God  is  reconciled  to  all  men.  The  enmity  on  one  side 
of  the  breach  is  ended.     God  has  forgiven  all  for  Christ's  sake. 

Accordingly  the  natural  consequences  of  reconcihation  on  the  part  of  God, 
have  extended  to  all  men.  The  atonement  was  not  a  mere  formal  transac- 
tion. It  brought  the  world  nigh  to  God,  and  he  '  poured  out  his  Spirit  upon 
M  flesh.''  Acts  2:  17.  '  The  Paraclete'  is  given  not  to  believers  only,  but 
to  the  whole  world.  Its  business  is  to  '  convince  the  world  of  sin,  of 
:righteousness,  and  of  judgment.'  John  16:  8 — 11.  It  is  the  life  of  Christ ; 
and  that  is  '  the  light  that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  \\:orld.' 
It  shines  in  darkness,  though  the  darkness  comprehends  it  not.  Jno.  1:  5 — 9. 
^he  wicked  are  not  excluded  from  its  influences  ;  for  they  are  represented  as 
resisting  it.  Acts  7:  51.  They  perish,  not  because  the  spiritual  grace  pur- 
chased by  the  atonement  is  withheld  from  them,  but  because  they  '  count  the 
blood  of  the  covenant  wherewith  they  were  sanctified  an  unholy  thing,  and 
'do  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  grace.'  Heb.  10:  29.  The  effusion  of  the 
Spirit  which  followed  the  atonement,  effected  a  general  union  of  the  divine 
■and  human  natures.  The  apostles  and  church  at  Jerusalem  were  only  the 
point  of  contact,  where  that  union  took  place*    Christ,  as  the  second  Adam, 


SALVATION  FROM   SIN,  175 

is  spiritually  connected  with,  and  present  in,  the  whole  race  of  man.  *  The 
grace  [i.  e.  the  spiritual  power]  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation,  hath  appeared 
to  all  men.'  Tit.  2:  11.  *  This  is  the  record,  that  God  hath  given  to  us 
[i.  e.  to  mankind]  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son.'  1  John  6:  11. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  gospel  calls  men  first  of  all,  not  to  works,  but  to  faith. 
If  our  forgiveness  were  yet  future  and  contingent,  and  Christ  were  not  in 
the  world,  but  only  in  believers  and  in  heaven,  we  might  labor  to  propitiate 
God,  and  to  procure  the  presence  of  his  Son.  But  since  God  is  already 
reconciled  and  Christ  '  is  come  in  the  flesh,'  it  only  remains  for  us  to  believe. 
Accordingly  Paul's  direction  to  one  who  is  in  quest  of  the  righteousness  of 
God,  is — '  Say  not  in  thine  heart,  Who  shall  ascend  into  heaven  ?  (that  is, 
to  bring  Christ  down  from  above ;)  or,  Who  shall  descend  into  the  deep  ? 
(that  is,  to  bring  up  Christ  again  from  the  dead.)  .  .  .  The  word  is  nigh 
thee,  even  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart:  that  is,  the  word  of  faith  which 
we  preach ;  that  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
shalt  believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou 
shalt  be  saved.'  Rom.  10:  6 — 9. 

II.  To  believe  the  gospel,  is  to  credit  and  heartily  embrace  the  truth  that 
God  is  reconciled  to  man,  and  that  Christ  is  in  all  flesh.  To  distinguish  true 
faith  from  false,  we  must  notice  several  specific  characteristics .  involved  in 
this  general  definition. 

1.  True  faith  is  an  act  of  the  heart.  It  is  not  a  passive  or  forced  assent 
of  the  understanding,  nor  a  movement  of  the  feehngs,  in  view  of  the  truth, 
but  a  determination  of  the  will  to  seal  the  veracity  of  God.  Its  language  is 
• — '  I  WILL  believe  God,  though  men  and  devils  and  my  own  feelings  con- 
tradict him.' 

2.  True  faith  proceeds  directly  to  self-application  of  the  general  truths  of 
the  gospel.  It  argues  thus  :■ — ^  God  is  reconciled  to  the  world  ;  therefore  he 
is  reconciled  to  me.     Christ  is  in  all  flesh  ;  therefore  he  is  in  me.' 

3.  True  faith  boldly  follows  primary  facts  to  their  consequences,  thus : — 
*  If  Christ  is  in  me,  his  death  and  resurrection  are  in  me  ;  I  am  crucified 
with  him ;  my  soul  is  with  him  in  the  resurrection ;  I  sit  with  him  in  heavenly 
places  ;  his  victory  over  sin  and  death  is  mine.' 

4.  True  faith  acts  itself  out  by  openly  confessing,  with  self-application y, 
the.  truth  that  '  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh'  with  all  its  consequences. 

Thus  the  inquirer  will  perceive  that  to  believe  the  gospel  is  by  no  means 
a  trivial  act.  In  '  setting  to  his  seal  that  God  is  true,'  he  must  break  through 
all  the  spiritual  barriers  of  the  world  of  darkness  ;  he  must  '  cast  down  his 
own  imaginations,'  and  command  his  understanding  into  subjection  to  *  the^ 
evidence  of  things  not  seen ;'  he  must  follow  the  word  of  God  wilfully  and. 
boldly,  where  feelings  draw  back  and  resist ;  he  must  gird  himself  for  con- 
flict with  the  scorn  and  gainsaying  of  the  world.  The  bravery  of  the  battle- 
warrior  is  cowardice,  in  comparison  with  the  courage  of  him  who  can  heartily 
say,  '  Let  God  be  true  and  every  man  a  liar.'  '  This  is  the  work  of  God,'' 
that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath  sent' — a  work  too  great  for  fallen  hu- 
man nature.  '  No  man  (says  Christ)  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father 
vwliich  hath  sent  me  draw  him.'    This  is  true,  not  because  men  are  destitute 


176  SALVATION  FKOM  SIN. 

of  the  natural  faculties  necessary  to  the  belief  of  the  gospel,  but  because  they 
have  not  moral  energy  enough  to  resist  the  devil  and  lay  hold  on  the  truth. 
Faith  therefore  is  not  the  fruit  of  the  flesh,  but  '  the  gift  of  God  ;'  (Eph.  2; 
8  ;)  an  act  of  the  heart  of  man,  possible  to  all,  and  in  the  highest  degree 
obligatory  on  all,  but  actually  existing  only  where  God  in  his  sovereign 
mercy  gives  special  grace.  '  God  is  the  Savior  of  all  men,  specially  of  those 
that  believe.''  1  Tim.  4:  10.  He  has  forgiven  all,  and  sent  the  Spirit  of  grace 
to  all,  and  so  has  left  all  utterly  without  excuse  for  remaining  unreconciled ; 
but  he  has  gwQn  faith  only  to  them  whom  he  chose  in  Jesus  Christ  before 
the  world  began. 

The  effect  of  simple  belief  on  the  conduct  and  condition  of  men,  may  be 
illustrated  by  many  familiar  examples.  Suppose  two  nations,  that  have  been 
engaged  in  war  with  each  other,  are  reconciled  and  enter  into  a  treaty  of 
friendship.  Proclamation  of  peace  is  sent  forth  from  the  governments  to 
their  subjects.  All  who  heartily  believe  the  proclamation,  immediately  cease 
hostilities,  and  conform  their  feelings  and  conduct  to  the  friendly  relations 
established  by  the  treaty.  If  any  refuse  to  believe,  they  continue  the  war 
in  their  own  hearts  and  actions,  though  it  has  ceased  between  the  govern- 
ments. 

Again,  suppose  a  poor  outcast  is  made  heir  by  the  will  of  a  friend,  to  a 
large  estate.  He  is  informed  of  his  good  fortune.  Now  if  he  refuses  to  be- 
lieve that  the  will  exists,  and  that  he  is  actually  the  owner  of  the  estate,  he 
remains  a  beggar  in  feehngs  and  condition,  though  he  is  a  rich  man,  by  lawful 
title.  On  the  other  hand,  if  by  any  means  he  is  persuaded  to  believe  the 
truth  in  the  case,  his  feelings  and  actions  immediately  come  into  correspon- 
dence with  that  truth :  he  becomes  in  his  own  consciousness  as  well  as  in  fact 
a  rich  man. 

Examples  of  this  kind,  however,  cannot  fully  illustrate  the  power  of  faith 
in  the  atonement ;  for  in  all  such  cases,  the  word  to  be  believed  has  no  special 
power,  and  its  effect  on  the  condition  and  conduct  of  the  believer  is  produced 
simply  by  the  information  which  it  conveys  ;  whereas,  we  have  seen  that  the 
word  of  the  gospel  is  '  quick  and  powerful,  clothed  with  the  energy  of  God, 
and  produces  its  effect  on  believers,  even  more  by  its  spiritual  influence  than 
by  its  effect  on  the  understanding.  Truth  is  to  the  heart,  as  food  to  the 
body.  The  effect  of  food  is  proportioned  not  merely  to  the  digestive  power 
of  the  consumer,  but  also  to  the  nutritive  power  of  the  food  itself.  So  the 
effect  of  truth  received  into  the  heart,  is  proportioned  not  merely  to  the 
mental  energy  of  the  behever,  but  also  to  the  spiritual  energy  of  the  truth 
believed.  Hence  when  the  gospel  is  received  '  not  as  the  word  of  man,  but 
as  it  is  in  truth  the  word  of  God,'  the  heart  not  only  hears  information,  but 
feels  power. 

God  having  reconciled  the  world  unto  himself,  and  having  poured  out  his 
Spirit  upon  all  flesh,  the  inquirer  is  apprised  by  the  external  word,  that  Christ 
*  stands  at  the  door.'  He  may  properly  conceive  that  the  spirit  of  truth 
surrounds  and  presses  upon  him  like  the  atmosphere  ;  that  it  has  penetrated 
his  spirit  as  far  as  it  can  without  his  consent ;  that  it  is  '  nigh,  even  in  his 
heart  and  in  his  mouth.'    Now  when  he  believes  with  practical,  that  is  with 


SALVATION   FROM   SIN.  177 

confessing  faith,  the  facts  of  which  he  thus  conceives,  his  spirit  comes  into 
sympathy  with  the  Spirit  of  truth  ;  they  coalesce  and  become  one.  That 
which  was  before  an  unperceivecl  influence,  present  only  as  it  w^ere  to  the 
surface  of  his  spirit,  and  repelled  by  unbehef  as  oil  is  repelled  by  water,  now 
enters  into  his  consciousness  ;  he  feels  that  Christ  is  in  him,  with  the  power 
of  the  resurrection,  the  victory  over  sin  and  death,  the  hope  of  glory. 

If  the  inquirer  asks,  '  How^  may  I  know  that  I  shall  holdfast  the  profes- 
sion I  have  made  V — our  answer  is,  Your  security,  like  your  faith,  though 
it  depends  subordinately  on  your  own  will,  is  nevertheless  '  the  gift  of  God.' 
The  same  power  that  first  disposed  you  to  believe,  must  *  strengthen,  settle, 
and  establish'  you  in  the  faith.  You  have  good  right  to  hope  this  will  be 
done,  from  the  consideration  suggested  by  Paul — '  If  when  w^e  were  enemies 
we  were  reconciled,  .  .  .  much  more^  being  reconciled^  we  shall  he  saved."* 
Rom.  4:  10.  If  God  has  laid  hold  of  us,  will  he  not  secure  us  ?  '  Know  ye 
not,'  says  the  apostle,  '  that  to  w^hom  ye  yield  yourselves  servants  to  obey, 
his  servants  yc  aref  (Rom.  6:  16  ;)  i.  e.,  the  first  act  of  yielding,  places  us 
permanently  under  the  power  of  him  to  whom,  we  yield.  'He  that  hath  begiin 
a  good  work  in  us,  will  perform  it  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ.'  Phil.  1:6. 


To  those  who  neglect  or  reject  the  offer  of  salvation  from  sin,  we  must 
address  a  word  of  w^arning.  Though  the  atonement  has  purchased  forgive- 
ness and  spiritual  grace  for  all,  it  must  be  remembered  that  this  forgiveness 
and  grace,  once  decisively  and  deliberately  refused,  is  not  proffered  the 
second  time.  '  If  we  sin  wilfully  after  that  we  have  received  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins,  but  a  certain  fearful 
looking  for  of  judgm_ent,  and  fiery  indignation  that  shall  devour  the  adver- 
saries.' Heb.  10:  26,  27.  Sins  are  of  two  kinds,  viz  :  sins  against  the  law, 
(written  or  unwritten,)  and  sins  against  the  truth  and  grace  of  the  gospel. 
Sins  against  the  law,  i.  e.  all  sins  that  are  committed  previous  to  the  know- 
ledge of  the  gospel,  are  provided  for  by  the  atonement,  and  will  exclude  no 
one  from  salvation.  But  the  second  groivth  of  sinj^ — those  w^hich  are  com- 
mitted in  full  view  of  the  provisions  of  the  gospel,  and  under  its  spiritual 
influences — those  which  '  tread  the  Son  of  God  under  foot,  and  do  despite 
unto  the  Spirit  of  grace,' — can  never  be  expiated.  If  the  sanctifying  power 
of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  has  tried  its  strength  upon  a  sinner's 
heart  in  vain,  that  sinner  has  passed  beyond  the  possibility  of  salvation  ;  for 
all  subsequent  influences  must  be  weaker  than  those  which  have  already  failed. 
Mere  disease  may  admit  hope  ;  but  disease  that  has  withstood  the  power  of 
appropriate  medicine  is  given  up  as  incurable.  '  If  any  man  see  his  brother 
sin  a  sin  which  is  not  unto  death,  he  shall  ask,  and  [Christ]  shall  give  him 
life  for  them  that  sin  not  unto  death.  There  is  a  sin  unto  death.  I  do  not 
say  that  he  shall  pray  for  it.  All  unrighteousness  is  sin  ;  and  there  is  a  sin 
which  is  not  unto  death.'  1  John  5:  16,  17.  Christ,  in  his  djung  interces- 
sion, did  not  pray  for  the  sin  '  that  is  unto  death.'  *  Father,  forgive  them, 
for  they  knoto  not  what  they  do,"*  Here  is  the  true  limitation  of  the  atone^ 
ment.  Men  may  even  crucify  the  Son  of  God  in  ignorance^  and  yet  be 
forgiven.  Paul  persecuted  Christ  in  his  members  with  '  threatening  and 
22 


ITS  PERFECTIONISM. 

filaugliter,'  and  yet  lie  found  mercy,  becjiuse  he  *  did  it  ignorantly  in  unbe- 
lief.' 1  Tim.  1:  13.  But  when  sinners,  once  forgiven  by  the  atonement ^ 
*  crucify  the  Son  of  God  afresh,  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame,'  knoiving 
what  they  do^  their  sin  is  no  longer  human,  but  diaboHcal — they  have  passed 
beyond  the  precincts  of  the  atonement.  We  repeat  it  therefore,  let  those 
who  hear  the  tidings  of  God's  mercy  with  indiiference,  bear  in  mind  that,  if 
he  is  now  reconciled  to  them  as  men^  '  that  are  ignorant  and  out  of  the  way,' 
he  mil  not  be  reconciled  to  them  when  they  become  devils^  by  wilful,  delib- 
erate rejection  of  the  profters  of  his  grace.  Let  them  remember  that  though 
the  tent  of  salvation  is  spread  over  the  whole  world,  unbelief  can  dig  out  of 
that  tent  into  hell. 

That  no  one  may  mistake  the  views  presented  in  this  article  for  Antinomi- 
anism,  we  will  add  in  conclusion,  that  we  beheve  a  day  of  judgment  is 
coming,  in  which  God  will  literally  '  reward  every  man  accordmg  to  his 
WORKS  ;'  that  it  is  therefore  absolutely  necessary,  in  order  that  men  may  be 
saved,  that  they  should  be  put  in  the  w^ay  of  domg  good  works.  In  fact  we 
carry  our  estimation  of  good  works  so  far,  that  we  fully  believe  that  every 
man  who  comes  to  the  judgment  with  no  better  works  than  those  described 
in  the  seventh  chapter  of  Eomans,  will  be  damned.  We  therefore  present 
this  gospel  of  faith,  not  as  an  easy  method  of  escaping  the  necessity  of  works, 
but  as  the  only  and  the  sure  foundation  of  such  works  as  will  survive  the  fire 
of  judgment.  We  beheve  the  words  of  Christ— '^s  the  branch  cannot  hear 
fruit  of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine;  no  more  can  ye,  except  ye  abide 
in  me.  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches:  he  that  ahideth  in  me,  and  I 
in  him,  the  same  bring  eth  forth  much  fruit.'' 


§  ^3.    PERFECTIONISM. 

Perceiving  nothing  in  the  sound  or  form  of  the  word  Perfectionist,  es- 
sentially odious,  and  assuredly  anticipating  the  time  of  its  redemption  from 
infamy,  we  will  take  the  liberty  to  explam  the  meaning  of  it,  as  used  by 
those  who  consent  to  bear  it. 

We  mil  not  attempt  to  state  what  a  Perfectionist  is  not ; — for  this  would 
require  us  to  dissect  and  disclaim  all  the  varying  and  incongruous  images  of 
perfection  conjured  up  by  the  word  in  the  various  fancies  of  men,  from  a 
picture  of  a  monk  m  sackcloth  and  ashes,  to  that  of  a  seraph  with  six  wings. 
It  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  in  the  minds  of  those  who  consent  to  bear  the 
name,  so  far  as  we  know,  perfection  is  predicated  of  only  a  single  attribute, 
viz.,  holiness  ;  and  of  that  only  hi  a  limited  sense.  We  find  in  the  Bible,  as 
well  as  in  che  nature  of  the  case,  three  modifications  of  perfect  holiness: — - 
perfection  of  obedience;  perfection  of  security  of  obedience  ;  and  perfection 
of  holiness  by  expeiience  or  suffering.     These  distinctions  may  be  easily 


PERFECTIONISM.  '  179 

nnderstood  by  a  simple  illustration.  The  success  of  a  general  on  a  battle- 
field, may  be  perfect  in  a  threefold  manner.  1.  He  may  be  simply  success- 
ful at  the  outset.  2.  He  may  be  successful  at  the  outset,  with  an  assurance 
of  final  victory.  3.  He  may  be  successful  by  the  actual  accomplishment  of 
the  victory. 

1.  The  holiness  of  Adam,  and  of  the  angels  that  left  their  first  estate,  was 
perfect,  considered  simply  as  obedience  to  law,  but  destitute  of  prospective 
security,  as  was  proved  by  their  apostacy. 

2.  The  holiness  of  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  was  perfect,  both  as  present 
obedience  to  law,  and  as  prospectively  secure.  Yet  in  another  sense  it  was 
imperfect,  during  his  residence  on  earth.  For  '  though  he  w^ere  a  son,  yet 
learned  he  obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered  ;  and  being  made  per- 
fect, he  became  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all  them  that  obey  him.* — 
'  For  it  became  him,  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  for  whom  are  all  things,  in 
bringing  many  sons  unto  glory  to  make  the  captain  of  their  salvation  perfect 
through  sufferings.^  Previous  to  his  crucifixion,  this  captain  of  our  salvation 
was  perfectly  successful  in  his  conflict  with  sin,  both  presently  and  prospect- 
ively ;  yet  the  battle  was  before  him.  So  Paul,  while  counting  all  things 
but  loss,  that  he  might  overcome  death  by  knowing  the  fellowship  of  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ,  denied  that  he  had  already  attained  the  victory,  or  was  al- 
ready perfect ;  and  yet  in  the  next  breath,  falhng  back  upon  an  inferior 
meaning  of  the  word,  he  could  say,  '  Let  us  therefore,  as  many  as  be  perfect 
be  thus  minded.' 

3.  The  present  holiness  of  Ohrist,  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  and  of  those 
who,  having  overcome  by  his  blood,  have  attained  that  likeness  of  his  resur- 
rection toward  which  Paul  was  urging  his  way,  is  perfected  in  the  highest 
sense.  The  battle  is  fought ;  the  victory  won ;  their  holiness  is  perfect  as 
obedience — perfect  in  security — and  perfect  by  victory  over  suffering.  Per- 
fectionists, then,  if  they  may  be  allowed  to  designate  the  place  which  they 
suppose  they  hold  on  the  scale  of  perfection,  universally  disclaim  the  profes- 
sion of  attainments  above  those  of  the  sidffering  Son  of  God.  They  covet 
not  the  premature  glory  of  victory  before  battle.  They  stand  with  Paul  on 
the  middle  ground,  between  the  perfection  of  Adam  and  of  Christ,  saved 
from  sin — eternally  saved — ^^^et  '  saved  by  hope,  waiting  for  the  adoption, 
to  wit,  the  redemption  of  their  bodies.' 

We  acknowledge  that  the  phrase  perfect  holiness  is  almost  a  solecism  in  the 
first  of  the  three  senses  above  mentioned ;  for  any  thing  short  of  perfect 
present  obedience,  is  perfect  disobedience ;  and  we  might  as  well  speak  of 
the  imperfect  success  of  a  general  who  never  began  to  conquer,  as  to  speak 
of  the  imperfect  holiness  of  one  who  has  not  yet  obeyed  God.  The  truth  is 
too  simple  to  need  expansion,  that  every  individual  action  is  either  wholly 
sinful  or  wholly  righteous ;  and  that  every  being  in  the  universe,  at  any  giv- 
en time,  is  either  entirely  wicked  or  entirely  holy,  i.  e.  either  conformed  to 
law  or  not  conformed  to  law :  yet  the  prevailing  modes  of  thought  and  speech 
force  us  to  recognize  a  quality  of  action  and  character,  called  imperfect  ho- 
liness, wliich  takes  rank  somewhere  indefinitely  below  wdiat  may  seem  the 
lowest  possible  or  conceivable  modification  of  holiness.     So  that,  with  refer- 


180  PERFECTIONISM. 

ence  to  this,  we  must  name  7ne7'e  holiness,  perfect  holiness — consigning  the 
censure  due  to  the  impropriety  of  our  language,  to  those  who  maintain  the 
possibility  of  serving  God  and  mammom,  i.  e.  of  being  holy  and  sinful,  at  the 
same  time.  A  profession,  then,  of  perfect  holiness,  thus  understood,  is  in 
truth  merely  a  profession  of  holiness,  without  which,  confessedly,  none  can 
claim  tlie  name  of  sons  or  servants  of  God  ;  and  instead  of  deserving  the 
charge  of  arrogance,  should  rather  be  censured,  if  at  all,  for  conveying,  in 
the  language  of  it,  the  implication  that  men  may  be  less  than  perfectly  holy, 
and  yet  not  perfectly  sinful.  But  we  take  higher  ground.  The  first  Adam 
was  holy ;  the  second  Adam  was,  in  a  more  proper  sense,  perfectly  holy — ■ 
his  holiness  was  secure.  The  gospel  platform  is  as  much  above  the  ground 
of  mere  holiness,  as  a  deed  i^  fee  simple  is  above  mere  possession. 

As  obedience  is  the  test  of  all  holiness,  so  we  believe,  under  the  gosp'el, 
perpetuity  of  obedience  is  the  test  of  all  holiness.  Here  we  may  speak, 
without  solecism,  of  perfect  holiness ;  and  here  we  are  exposed  to  a  more 
plausible  charge  of  arrogance.  Let  us  examine  the  ground  of  this  charge. 
Without  entering  the  wide  field  of  scripture  argument,  it  is  sufficient  for  our 
purpose  to  notice  a  single  fact  in  relation  to  the  views  of  those  who  most 
freely  stigmatize  the  supposed  self-righteousness  of  Perfectionists.  These 
very  persons  universally  and  confessedly  expect,  at  death,  to  become  Per- 
fectionists, and  that  not  merely  of  the  second,  but  of  the  third  degree  :  in 
other  words,  while  earthly  Pefectionists  claim  only  secure  dehverance  from 
sin,  their  accusers  anticipate,  within  a  brief  space,  secure  deliverance  from 
sin  and  all  evil.  What  is  the  consideration  which  exempts  their  anticipation 
from  the  charge  of  self-righteous  presumption,  and  yet  leaves  the  burden 
upon  our  claim  ?  Their  answer  assuredly  must  be — '  We  anticipate,  at  death, 
secure  redemption  from  sin  and  evil,  as  the  gift  of  the  grace  of  God,^  But 
the  self-same  apology  relieves  our  claim.  We  receive  present  redemption 
from  sin  as  the  gift  of  the  grace  of  God  ;  we  only  enter,  '  by  a  new  and  liv- 
ing way,'  upon  the  possession  of  a  portion  of  that  gratuitous  inheritance 
which  they  expect  to  receive  at  death.  We  must  be  permitted,  then,  to  say 
boldly,  that  the  same  rule  which  allows  men  to  liope  for  heaven  without  pre- 
sumption, allows  us  to  receive  heaven  here  without  self-righteousness :  and 
the  charge  of  arrogance  is  due  to  those  who  hope  for  the  gift,  while  they 
daily  displease  the  Giver.  The  same  Christ  who  will  be  the  believer's  por- 
tion in  heaven,  is  our  righteousness  and  sanctincation  here.  While,  there- 
fore, we  shrink  not  from  the  odium  connected  with  the  name  Perfectionist, 
we  cannot  despair  of  disabusing  all  honest  men,  ere  long,  of  a  portion  of  their 
prejudices  against  it,  by  convincing  them  that  we  join  in  the  testimony  of  our 
li^ng  head,  that  '  there  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is  God,'  and  believe  that 
by  the  energy  of  his  goodness  alone  we  are  delivered  from  sin. 

The  standard  by  which  every  man  judges  of  the  nature  of  time  humihty, 
and  of  its  opposite,  spiritual  pride,  is  determined  by  the  answer  which  his 
heart  gives  to  the  question — '  Who  is  the  author  of  righteousness  ?  If  the 
credit  of  holiness  is  due  to  him  who  professes  it,  then  his  profession  exalts 
himself  at  the  expense  of  God,  and  justly  exposes  him  to  the  charge  of 
spiritual  arrogance,  however  high  or  low  may  be  his  claim.    But  if  God 


PERFECTIONISM.  181 

alone  is  acknowledged  as  the  author  of  righteousness,  a  profession  of  holiness 
is  only  che  acknowledgment  of  a  gift — and  not  only  consistent  with,  but 
necessary  to,  the  exercise  of  true  humility.  The  man  who  has  no  conception 
of  any  righteousness  other  than  his  own,  may  well  count  the  confession  of 
imperfection — genuine  modesty.  From  such  we  expect  no  mercy.  But  if 
there  are  any  who  ascribe  all  righteousness  to  God,  we  hope  to  convince  them 
that  the  arrogance  Avhich  boasts  of  the  '  Lord  our  righteousness'  is  the  per- 
fection of  humility ;  and  that  the  profession  of  humility  which  delights  in 
the  confession  of  sin  and  in  the  expectation  of  a  continued  commission  of  it, 
is  only  a  modest  way  of  robbing  Christ  of  the  crown  of  his  glory. 

Is  it  imagined  that  the  man  to  whom  God  in  truth  has  given  perfect  holi- 
ness, has  done  some  great  thing  ?  He  has  done  nothing.  The  great  achieve- 
ment of  his  will  which,  be  it  remembered,  the  grace  of  God  has  secured,  is 
the  cessation  from  his  own  works,  and  the  commencement  of  an  everlasting 
repose  on  the  energy  o?  the  Uving  God,  as  the  basis  and  hope  of  his  right- 
eousness. He  has  simply  died — and  with  his  dying  breath  bequeathed  his 
body,  soul  and  spirit  to  his  Maker,  rolling  the  responsibiUty  of  his  future  and 
eternal  obedience  upon  the  everlasting  arm. 

We  believe  it  is  incomparably  easier  to  receive  deliverance  from  all  sins, 
than  to  conquer  one.  Paul  clearly  presents  the  principle  in  R-om.  1:  21 — 32, 
which  accounts  for  the  difficulty  men  find  in  obtaining  freedom  from  sin. — 
Because  they  refuse  to  glorify  God,  he  gives  them  up  to  vile  affections.  The 
affections  of  men  are  rightfully  under  the  perfect  control  of  God.  When  he 
is  dethroned,  he  abandons  his  kingdom,  and  anarchy  ensues  ;  every  eifort  to 
quell  the  rebeUion  of  desires,  which  falls  short  of  a  reinstatement  of  God  in 
his  sovereignty  over  the  heart,  must  result  in  disheartening  failure.  But 
why  should  it  be  difficult  for  Him  who  'stands  at  the  door,'  if  his  petition  for 
entrance  is  heard,  and  his  claim  for  dominion  admitted,  to  restore  peace  and 
security  to  the  ruined  kingdom  ?  Why  should  it  be  thought  an  incredible 
thing,  that  God  should  raise  the  dead?  Pride,  envy,  anger,  sensuahty,  &c., 
are  but  limbs  of  the  tree  of  sin,  the  stock  of  which  is  that  unbelief  which 
rejects  the  righteousness  of  God.  The  man  who  commences  the  work  of  ex- 
terminating sin  at  the  top  of  the  tree,  or  among  any  of  the  branches,  will 
soon  be  disheartened  by  the  discovery  that  the  branches  he  ha^.  once  lopped 
off,  soon  grow  again,  or  send  their  juice  into  other  limbs.  We  say,  there- 
fore, it  is  ea^^er  to  lav  the  ax  at  the  r^pt  and  fell  the  wbgle  tree  at  once, 
than  to  exterminate  effectually  a  single  lirnb.  In  view  of  these  considera- 
tions, though  we  object  not  to  the  name.  Perfectionist — and  though  we  verily 
believe  and  unblushingly  maintain  that  we  are  free  from  sin — we  beg  to  be 
relieved  of  the  glory,  and  of  tlie  shame  of  the  achievement ;  as  we  have  been 
taught  with  the  scourge,  that  the  day  has  come  when  '  all  the  haughtiness  of 
men  shall  be  brought  low,  and  the  Lord  alone  exalted.' 


§ 24.  'HE  THAT  COMMITTETH  SIN,  IS  OF  THE  DEVIL.' 

Much  has  been  said  and  written  to  show  that  John,  in  the  above  declaration, 
did  not  mean  what  he  said.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  he  did  not  mean 
more  than  he  said  ;  for,  assuming  that  his  intention  was  to  convey  the  idea 
that  any  one  who  sins  has  no  part  or  lot  in  the  salvation  of  the  gospel,  he 
could  not  have  expressed  it  more  clearly  in  an  equal  number  of  words,  than 
he  has  done  in  these.  The  only  question  is,  whether  he  meant  less  than  he 
said ;  whether  his  words  are  to  be  qualified  in  such  a  manner  as  to  mitigate 
the  rigor  of  their  simple  sense.  In  determining  this  question,  we  shall  resort, 
1,  to  the  context ;  2,  to  other  parts  of  scripture  ;  3,  to  the  nature  of  the  case. 

I.  The  Context. 

"  Ev^ery  man  that  hath  this  hope  [viz.  of  seeing  Christ]  in  him,  purifieth 
himself  even  a^  he  is  pure.  Whosoever  committeth  sin  transgresseth  also  the 
law:  for  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law.  And  ye  know  that  he  was  mani- 
fested to  take  awajour  sins  ;  and  in  him  is  no  sin.  Whosoever  abideth  in 
him  sinneth  not ;  whosoever  sinneth,  hath  not  seen  him,  neither  known  him. 
Little  children,  let  no  man  deceive  you ;  he  that  doeth  righteousness,  is 
righteous,  even  as  he  is  righteous.  He  that  committeth  sin,  is  of  the  devil ; 
for  the  devil  sinneth  from  the  beginning.  For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God 
was  manifested,  that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil.  Whosoever  is 
born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin  ;  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him :  and  he 
cannot  sin,  because  he  is  born  of  God.  In  this  the  children  of  God  are  man- 
ifest, and  the  children  of  the  devil :  whosoever  doeth  not  righteousness,  is 
not  of  God."  1  John  3:  3—10. 

1.  It  is  manifest  in  the  above  passage,  that  the  apostle  w^as  laboring  seri- 
ously and  earnestly  to  establish  the  truth,  (whatever  that  truth  may  be,) 
that  '  he  that  committeth  sin  is  of  the  devil.'  He  has  expressed  it  not  less 
than  eight  times,  in  varying  phraseology,  within  the  •  compass  of  tliis  short 
paragraph.  Among  all  these  expressions,  we  may  surely  expect  to  ascertain 
beyond  controversy,  whether  he  meant  to  assert  that  '  he  that  committeth 
fiin  is  of  the  devil,'  absolutely,  or  in  a  qualified  sense.  If  he  has  not  defi 
nitely  and  perfectly  conveyed  his  meaning,  he  was  either  singularly  unfor- 
tunate as  a  Writer,  or  a  wilful  deceiver.  But  he  cannot  be  misunderstood. 
Not  a  particle  of  evidence  can  be  found  in  the  whole  paragraph,  that  he  de- 
signed to  suggest  or  admit  any  qualification  of  the  simple  declaration  '  he 
that  committeth  sin  is  of  the  devil.'  On  the  contrary,  he  has  expressed  the 
same  idea  in  at  least  seven  other  instances,  without  qualification  ;  and  in  two 
instances,  with  such  a  comparison  as  perfectly  determines  the  extent  of  his 
meaning.  '  Every  man  that  hath  this  hope  in  him,  purifieth  himself  even  as 
he  [  Christ]  is  pure."*  '  He  that  doeth  righteousness,  is  righteous,  even  as  he 
is  righteous  J  If  it  is  not  absolutely  true  that  *  he  that  committeth  sin  is  of 
the  devil,'  the  apostle  has  eight  times  in  succession  repeated  a  false  assertion 
"without  the  least  intimation  of  his  covert  meaning,  and  with  such  definitive 
explanations  that  we  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion  that  he  designed  and 
earnestly  labored  to  establish  those  to  whom  he  wrote  in  the  belief  of  its  truth. 


HE  THAT  COMMITTETH  SIN  IS  OF  THE  DEVIL.  18S 

2.  The  Immediate  context  strongly  intimates  the  nature  and  extent  of  the^ 
truth  declared  in  the  words  in  question.  '  Little  children,  let  no  man  deceive 
you  ;  he  that  doeth  righteousness,  is  righteous,  even  as  he  is  righteous  :  he 
that  committeth  sin  is  of  the  devil.'  The  apostle  was  evidently  dwelling  on 
a  point,  concerning  which  the  greatest  danger  of  deception  existed.  We  may 
well  perceive  the  necessity  of  his  caution — '  Let  no  man  deceive  you' — if  we 
understand  that  he  was  insisting  upon  the  truth  that  all  men  are  either  as 
righteous  as  Christ,  or  as  wicked  as  the  devil.  Doubtless  there  were  then, 
as  there  are  now,  multitudes  who  could  not  receive  Christ's  assertion,  that 
*  a  good  tree  cannot  bring  forth  evil  fruit,  neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring 
forth  good  fruit' — who  believed  it  possible  to  serve  God  and  mammon  at  the 
same  time.  Such  persons  might  be  expected  to  deceive  themselves  and 
others.  Hence  it  was  needful  that  the  truth  on  the  subject  should  be  stated 
with  what  seems  to  be  almost  puerile  repetition,  and  with  explicit  caution 
against  deception.  There  is  no  subject  at  this  day,  in  respect  to  Avhich  there 
is  so  much  manifest  looseness  of  thought,  and  tendency  to  self-deception,  as 
the  question,  whether,  and  how  much,  men  may  sin  and  yet  be  Christians. 
Human  depravity  teaches  us  to  expect  a  tendency  to  lean  away  from  the 
severe  doctrine  of  the  apostle.  In  these  circumstances,  his  warning — 'Let 
no  man  deceive  you' — is  not  only  appropriate  to  his  subject,  but  a  pledge  of 
his  plainness.  With  such  a  warning  in  his  mouth,  how  could  he  use  the  lan- 
guage of  poetry  or  metaphor  ?  If  he  was  honest,  he  could  say  no  more  nor 
less  than  he  meant.  If  he  did  not  mean  that  all  men  are  either  as  righteous 
as  Christ  or  as  wicked  as  the  devil,  he  has  done  what  he  could,  so  far  as  lan- 
guage is  concerned,  to  deceive  those  to  whom  he  wrote,  while  he  solemnly 
cautioned  them  agamst  the  delusions  of  others.  '  Little  children,  let  no  man 
deceive  you  ;  he  that  doeth  righteousness,  is  righteous,  even  as  he  is  right- 
eous.' As  if  he  had  said,  '  There  are  those  who  will  try  to  deceive  you  with 
the  notion  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  imperfect  righteousness — sinful  hoK- 
ness ;  but  beware  of  such.  He  that  committeth  sin  is  of  the  devil..'  If  the 
common  view  of  this  passage  is  true,  instead  of  diminishing  the  danger  of 
deception,  by  his  plainness  and  caution,  he  has  greatly  augmented  it.  If  he 
did  not  mean  to  convey  the  idea  that  men  cannot  sin  at  all  and  be  Christians, 
we  confess,  for  ourselves,  he  has  greatly  deceived  us.  Though  by  no  means 
naturally  inclined  to  exalt  the  standard  of  holiness,  we  have  been  compelled 
to  believe  that  John  was  a  Perfectionist  of  the  highest  standard,  so  far  as 
the  subject  of  holiness  is  concerned. 

3.  It  is  manifest,  in  the  paragraph  we  have  quoted,  that  the  apostle's  ob- 
ject was  to  estabhsh  a  definite  and  intelligible  test  by  which  the  children  of 
God,  and  the  children  of  the  devil,  might  be  distinguished.  '  In  this  the 
children  of  God  are  manifest,  and  the  children  of  the  devil ;  he  that  doeth 
not  righteousness  is  not  of  God.'  And  forasmuch  as  he  had  already  declared 
that  '  he  that  doeth  righteousness,  is  righteous  even  as  Christ  is  righteous,^ 
he  wtually  proposed  this  test,  viz  :  '  He  that  is  not  as  righteous  as  Christ,  is 
not  of  God:  in  other  words,  he  that  committeth  sin  [without  qualification] 
is  a  child  of  the  devil.'  In  this  view  of  his  language,  the  test  is  simple,  in- 
telligible, perfect.    Two  classes  only  are  recognized,  and  they  are  easily  and 


184  HE  THAT  COMMITTETH   SIN 

certainly  distinguished.  The  children  of  God  are  perfectly  holy.  Sin,  in 
every  case,  proves  the  subjects  of  it  children  of  the  devil.  If  we  substitute 
any  of  the  common  versions  of  this  passage  for  the  simj  le  words  as  they  stand 
in  the  text,  we  destrov  the  nature  and  value  of  the  test.  For  example,  '  He 
that  committeth  sin  haUtaally  is  of  the  devil.'  Now  it  would  puzzle  the 
keenest  casuist  that  ever  '  cavilled  for  the  ninth  part  of  a  hair,'  to  ascertain 
the  limits,  and  define  the  meaning  of  the  term,  'habitual  sin.'  Ihus^  the 
vi:'tuc  Oi*  the  test  is  lost.  This  may  be  seen  by  an  illustration.  While  the 
principle  v/as  held  that  *  he  who  drinks  ardent  sj  irits  habitually  is  intem- 
perate,' and  no  other  test  was  known,  nobody  could  with  any  satisfactory 
degree  of  accuracy,  disdnguish  between  the  temperate  and  intemperate. 
Every  man  had  his  own  standard  of  temperance.  Seme  claimed  the  char- 
acter of  t3:n  )3iMt3  m3i,  b33aa33  the/  draak  only  once  a  day  ;  and  some  who 
drank  before  and  after  every  meal,  thought  themselves  by  no  means  habitual 
drinkers.  But  when  the  principle  was  esta])lislied  that  '  he  that  drinks  ar- 
dent spirits  is  intemperate,'  a  perfect  and  J  ractical  test  was  furnished.  A 
fulcrum  was  fixed  for  the  action  of  that  lever  which  has  revolutionized  the 
p)ublic  sentiment  of  the  civilized  world.  So,  while  the  word  '  habitually'  is 
added  to  the  declarations  of  the  word  of  God  concerning  sin,  we  can  expect 
nothing  but  looseness  of  thought  and  looseness  of  practice,  which  shall  con- 
found all  valuable  distinctions  between  saints  and  sinners.  Receive  the  word 
of  God  as  it  stands — '  He  that  committeth  sin  is  of  the  devil' — and  a  fulcrum 
is  fixed  for  a  lever  which  by  the  power  of  God  shall  ere  long  turn  an  inverted 
>Yorld  upside  down.  These  remarks  apply  with  equal  force  to  various  other 
versions  of  John's  '  hard  saying:'  e.  g.,  '  He  that  committeth  hnoun  sin  is 
of  the  devil ;'  '  He  that  committeth  wilful  sin  is  of  the  devil ;'  '  He  that 
committeth  sin  is  of  the  devil  ivliile  committing  sin,''  &c.  But  it  is  needless 
to  protract  this  examination.  It  is  perfectly  manifest  to  every  candid  reader, 
that  John  intended  to  take  the  high  ground  of  total  abstinence  from  sin  ; 
and  we  are  so  uncharitable  (if  it  must  be  called  iin charitable)  as  to  believe 
that  they  who  insist  upon  inserting  the  words  '  habitual,'  '  known,'  'wilful,' 
&;c.,  in  his  uncjualified  declarations,  in  so  doing,  commit  hahitual,  JcnowTiy 
and  wilful  sin. 

II.  Other  parts  of  scripture. 

If  we  can  clearly  ascertain  the  sense  of  one  assertion  of  God's  word,  we 
need  no  more  proof  to  establish  the  truth  which  it  exhibits.  If  that  word  by 
legitimate  rules  of  interpretation  applied  to  every  part  individually,  is  not 
consistent  with  itself,  its  authority  is  destroyed.  Yet  we  have  thought  it 
well,  for  the  sake  of  those  who  make  great  account  of  w^hat  is  called  the 
*  analogy  of  faith' — the  principle  by  which  one  part  of  scripture  is  distorted 
into  Fceming  consistency  with  another,  and  by  the  abundant  use  of  which 
systems  of  divinity,  creeds,  &c.,  discordant  as  they  are,  have  usually  been 
constructed — to  show  by  a  few  examples,  that  John  is  not  the  only  writer  in 
the  Bible  who  denies  that  they  who  sin  have  any  part  or  lot  with  Christ. 

Paul  says — '  If  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  shall  die.'  Rom.  8: 13.  Who 
live  after  the  flesh  but  they  that  commit  sin  ?  Again  ;  '  If  while  we  seek  to 
be  justified  by  Christ,  we  ourselves  are  found  sinners,  is  Christ  therefore  the 


IS  OF  THE  DEVIL.  185 

ndnister  of  sin  ?  God  forbid.'  Gal.  2:  17.  Having  sliovm  that  believers  are 
justified  by  Christ,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law,  the  antinomian  question 
suggests  itself  to  the  apostle,  whether  justification  by  Christ  abolishes  the 
necessity  of  personal  hoHness — whether  Christ  will  justify,  and  thus  serve 
men  in  their  sins  ?  He  rephes  with  a  decisive  negative,  and  proceeds  to 
show  that  in  true  believers  Christ  makes  an  end  of  the  law  and  its  works,  by 
living  in  them,  crucifying  their  flesh,  and  making  them  personally  partakers 
of  his  perfect  righteousness. 

James  says — '  Ye  adulterers  and  adulteresses,  know  ye  not  that  the  friend- 
ship of  the  world  is  enmity  with  God  ?  Whosoever  therefore  will  be  a  friend 
of  the  world,  is  the  enemy  of  God.'  4:  4.  Most  professing  Christians  will 
admit  that  this  is  true  in  some  general  and  indefinite  sense.  If  it  is  true  in 
any  sense,  a  '  worldly  Christian'  (we  use  the  language  of  antichrist)  is  an 
enemy  of  God.  But  we  may  easily  perceive  that  it  is  true  in  its  most  rig- 
orous sense,  by  attending  to  the  hint  furnished  by  the  address  with  which  it 
begins : — '  Ye  adulterers  and  adulteresses.^  The  apostle  is  dealing  with  pro- 
fessors of  rehgion :  for  he  says  immediately  before,  '  Ye  ask  and  receive  not,' 
&c.,  showing  that  the  persons  he  addressed  recognized  God  as  the  source  of 
blessing ;  and  he  afterwards  characterizes  them  as  'douhle^nded.^  Ver.  8. 
We  understand  then  that  he  called  them  adulterers  and  adulteresses,  because 
they  professed  to  stand  in  the  covenant  of  God,  which  the  Bible  every  where 
represents  as  a  marriage  covenant^  and  yet  loved  the  w^orld.  In  other  words, 
the  love  of  the  world  is  a  breach  of  a  marriage  covenant  with  God — spiritual 
adultery.  Now  let  any  one  consider  how  dehcate  and  sacred  the  marriage 
relation  is,  as  it  exists  between  two  fellow-worms — ^how  the  least  suspicion  of 
a  single  instance  of  unfaithfulness  destroys  all  fellowship — and  he  will  under- 
stand how  often  and  how  long  men  may  commit  adultery  with  the  world,  and 
yet  remain  in  marriage  covenant  and  fellowship  with  the  great  God. 

As  it  is  this  class  of  persons,  called  by  James  the  '  double-minded,'  i.  e. 
'worldly  Christians,'  whose  standing  is  principally  concerned  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  our  hard  saying — '  He  that  committeth  sin  is  of  the  devil,' — we  will 
notice  particularly  several  other  passages  which  treat  of  their  case. 

Matt.  6:  22,  23.  '  The  light  of  the  body  is  the  eye :  if  therefore  thine 
eye  be  single,  thy  whole  body  shall  be  full  of  light:  but  if  thine  eye  be  evil, 
thy  whole  body  shall  be  full  of  darkness.  If  therefore  the  fight  that  is  in 
thee  be  darkness,  how  great  is  that  darkness  1'  In  the  first  two  clauses  of 
this  passage,  Christ  represents  all  men  as  either  full  of  light  or  full  of  dark- 
ness :  i.  e.,  wholly  righteous  or  wholly  sinful ;  for  all  men  have  either  a  sin- 
gle or  an  evil  eye.  In  the  last  clause  he  evidently  alludes  to  the  case  of 
those,  who,  having  an  evil  eye ^  imagme  themselves  at  \e2iSt  partially  right" 
eous,  and  thus  put  darkness  for  fight.  That  this  is  his  meaning,  appears 
from  what  immediately  follows : — '  No  man  can  serve  two  masters,'  &c. 
'  If  the  fight  that  is  in  thee  be  darkness,  [i.  e.,  if  you  have  an  understand- 
ing of  religious  truth,  profess  and  befieve  yourself  to  be  in  the  way  of  right- 
eousness, while  yet  your  eye  is  not  single — while  you  are  seeking  to  serve  both 
God  and  mammon,]  how  great  is  that  darkness !'  The  expression  intimates 
23 


186  HE  THAT  COMMITTETH  SIN 

^vhat  19  manifestly  true,  that  *  a  worldly  Christian/  a  '  double-minded  man, 
is  in  greater  moral  darkness  than  a  mere  heedless  sinner. 

Compare  Matt.  24:  48 — 51,  mth  Luke  12:  45,  46.  In  these  passages 
we  have  a  clear  description  of  the  character  and  doom  of  a  double-minded 
man.  1.  He  is  an  ^evil  servant;^  not  an  open  rebel,  neither  a  good  servant, 
but  a  rebel  at  heart,  and  a  servant  by  profession :  in  other  words,  an  adul- 
terer, a  double-minded  man,  who  is  seeking  to  serve  God  and  mammon. 
2.  He  takes  advantage  of  the  delay  of  his  master  to  indulge  himself  in  wick- 
edness, sa}dng,  '  My  Lord  delayeth  his  coming  ;'  an  exact  pattern  of  the  case 
of  those  who  neglect  preparation  for  meeting  Christ,  in  expectation  of  death- 
bed sanctification.  3.  His  master  comes  upon  him  unexpectedly,  cuts  him 
oflf,  and  assigns  him  a  portion  with  Jiypocrites  and  unbelievers.  This  last 
expression  intimates  that  he  was  neither  entirely  a  hypocrite,  nor  an  unbe- 
liever. 1\\  some  sense  he  was  truly  a  servant  of  his  master  ;  in  some  sense 
he  was  a  believer ;  but  he  wa-s  an  evil  servant,  a  wicked  believer,  and  there- 
fore unexpectedly  shared  the  doom  of  sheer  hypocrites  and  unbelievers. 

In  John  8:  30 — 44,  we  have  a  dehneation  of  the  character  and  standing  of 
wicked  believers.  Observe,  1,  the  persons  there  spoken  of  believed  on 
Christ ;  2,  they  thought  themselves  Abraham's  seed  and  therefore  heirs  of 
the  promises;  3,  they  denied  that  they  were  in  bondage  ;  4,  they  thought 
themselves  the  children  of  God.  Christ  declared  to  them  the  test — '  Who- 
soever committeth  sin  is  the  servant  of  sin.'  They  disputed,  cavilled,  re- 
jected his  word,  as  thousands  of  wicked  believers  do  in  this  day.  He  said 
to  them  plainly  at  last,  '  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil.'  For  this  they 
called  him  a  Samaritan,  and  a  child  of  the  devil.  Such  is  now  the  usual 
result  of  the  application  of  John's  test,  '  He  that  committeth  sin  is  of  the 
devil.' 

Revelation  3:  14 — 18,  describes  a  double-minded  church.  It  appears 
that  this  church  was  well  pleased  with  its  supposed  good  estate.  But  Christ 
gives  us  to  understand  that  he  loathed  its  character  more  than  he  would  have 
done  had  there  been  no  profession  of  righteousness. 

We  give  but  a  specimen  of  that  testimony  concerning  sin,  which  is  the 
most  prominent  characteristic  of  the  New  Testament,  and  indeed  of  the  whole 
Bible.  We  give  enough  to  show  that  the  Scripture  makes  but  two  classes 
among  men,  the  children  of  God,  and  the  children  of  the  devil ;  and  subdi- 
viding the  children  of  the  devil  into  careless  sinners  and  religious  sinners,  or 
unbelievers  and  ^double-minded,'  assigns  the  lowest  place  to  the  latter  class. 

III.  The  nature  of  the  case. 

Every  body  admits  in  some  general  sense  that  sin  characterizes  the  chil- 
dren of  the  devil,  and  holiness  the  children  of  God.  The  only  question  that 
calls  for  discussion  is  whether  sin  is  of  such  a  nature  that  a  single  instance 
of  the  commission  of  it  is  a  sufficient  criterion  of  character.  For  the  sake 
of  illustration  we  put  another  question :  Is  the  juice  of  a  tree  of  such  a  nature 
that  a  single  specimen  of  the  fruit  it  produces  is  a  sufficient  criterion  of  the 
tree  ?  We  are  authorized  by  right  reason,  as  well  as  by  the  example  of 
Christ,  to  use  this  illustration.  As  in  the  case  of  the  tree,  one  principle  of 
vitality  pervades  every  limb,  so  that  there  is  a  unity  of  character,  and  the 


IS  OF  THE  DEVIL.  187 

nature  of  all  its  fruit  may  be  known  by  one  specimen ;  so  in  tbe  case  of  moral 
beings,  one  principle  of  action,  call  it  heart,  or  '  governing  purpose,'  or 
what  you  will,  pervades  the  whole  conduct  of  the  man,  and  one  clearly  ascer- 
tained instance  of  moral  action  decides  his  whole  character.  Can  a  man's 
heart  be  opposed  to  all  sin,  and  yet  his  conduct  be  sinful  ?  If  so,  he  acts 
contrary  to  his  own  will,  which  is  absurd.  If  his  heart  is  only  opposed  to  sin 
*  in  general,'  if  he  has  only  what  is  called  a  '  supreme,'  not  an  entire  or 
perfect  purpose  to  avoid  sin,  he  may  indeed,  consistently  with  such  a  heart, 
sin  more  or  less  as  occasion  demands  ;  but  let  him  compare  such  a  heart  with 
the  law  of  God,  '  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,'  &c., 
and  he  will  discover  that  his  'governing  purpose'  is  a  sinful  one,  and  there- 
fore corrupts  his  whole  character.  Sin,  and  sin  only,  is  the  legitimate  fruit 
of  such  a  'governing  purpose.'  This  is  true  of  every  '  governing  purpose' 
which  falls  short  of  the  perfect  love  of  God  which  the  law  requires  ;  and  when 
that  perfect  love  of  God  is  attained,  sin  is  no  more.  If  men  love  God  with 
all  the  heart,  they  cannot  sin  ;  and  if  they  do  not  love  him  with  all  the  heart,  . 
their  governing  purpose  is  sinful,  and  therefore  they  can  o?ily  sin.  ' 

James  spoke  good  philosophy  when  he  said,  '  He  that  offendeth  in  one 
point,  is  guilty  of  all.'  The  prmciple  involved  in  that  saying  has  a  wider 
sweep  than  is  generally  discovered.  He  that  offendeth  in  one  point  is  guilty 
of  a  breach  of  the  whole  law ;  his  offense  betrays  a  state  of  heart,  wdiich 
under  similar  circumstances  would  break  every  specific  commandment,  and 
which  now  violates  the  spirit  of  that  whole  law,  which  requires  universal  love. 
He  that  offendeth  in  one  point,  is  guilty  of  all  the  sins  of  the  universe,  past, 
present,  and  to  come  ;  for  he  endorses  the  wdiole,  and  by  one  act,  so  far  as  t 
lies  in  his  power,  makes  himself  responsible  for  the  w^hole.  If  ten  persons  en- 
dorse successively  a  bill  of  exchange,  each  one  becomes  responsible  for  the 
whole  amount.  So  every  person  who  commits  sin,  by  so  doing  endorses  the 
bill  of  universal  sin.  What  though  he  has  not  exhibited  so  barefaced  impiety 
as  others  ?  If  he  in  a  single  instance  commits  sin,  he  places  himself  in  fel- 
lowship with  all  sinners  and  makes  the  barefaced  impiety  of  others  his  own. 
The  accessory  is  equally  guilty  with  the  murderer,  and  every  instance  of  sin 
makes  him  who  commits  it  accessory  to  the  prince  of  murderers.  If  this 
principle  is  correct,  every  sinner  without  exception  is  as  guilty  as  the  devil. 
Every  principle  of  common  law  and  common  sense  developes  the  truth  of 
John's  test — '  He  that  committeth  sin  is  of  the  de\il.' 


§  25.    PAUL  NOT  CARNAL ; 

AN   EXPOSITION  OF  ROMANS   7:    7—25. 

«  7  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Is  the  law  sin  ?  God  forbid.  Nay,  I  had  not 
known  sin,  but  by  the  law  :  for  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said. 
Thou  shalt  not  covet.  8  But  sin,  taking  occasion  by  the  commandment,  wrought 
in  me  all  manner  of  concupiscence.  For  without  the  law,  sin  was  dead.  9  For 
I  was  alive  without  the  law  once  :  but  when  the  commandment  came,  sin  revived, 
and  I  died.  10  And  the  commandment,  which  was  ordained  to  life,  I  found  to 
be  unto  death.  11  For  sin,  taking  occasion  by  the  commandment,  deceived  me, 
and  by  it  slew  me.  12  Wherefore  the  law  is  holy  ;  and  the  commandment  holy, 
and  just,  and  good.  13  Was  then  that  which  is  good  made  death  unto  me  ?  God 
forbid.  But  sin,  that  it  might  appear  sin,  working  death  in  me  by  that  which  is 
good  ;  that  sin  by  the  commandment  might  become  exceeding  sinful.  14  For 
we  know  that  the  law  is  spiritual ;  but  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin,  15  For  that 
which  I  do,  I  allow  not :  for  what  I  would,  that  do  I  not ;  but  \v^hat  I  hate,  that 
do  I.  16  If  then  I  do  that  which  I  vvould  not,  I  conse)it  unto  the  law,  that  it  is 
good.      17  Now  then  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me. 

18  For  I  know  that  in  me,  (that  is,  in  my  flesh,)  dwelleth  no  good  thing  :  for 
to  will  is  present  with  me ;  but  how  to  perform  that  which  is  good  I  find  not. 

19  For  the  good  that  I  would,  T  do  not :  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do. 

20  Now  if  I  do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth 
in  me.  21  I  find  then  a  law,  that  when  I  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me. 
22  For  I  delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inward  man  :  23  But  I  see  another 
law  in  my  members,  warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into 
captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members.  24  O  wretched  man  that  I 
am !  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?  25  I  thank  God,  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  So  then,  with  the  mind  I  myself  serve  the  law  of  God, 
but  with  the  flesh  the  law  of  sin."  Rom.  7:  7 — 25. 

This  passage  (especially  from  the  14th  to  the  23d  verse)  is  commonly 
received  throughout  Christendom,  as  a  description  of  Christian  experience 
— ^nay,  as  the  experience  of  the  greatest  of  the  apostles,  the  best  specimen 
of  Christianity.  Believing  this  view  of  the  passage  to  be  palpably  errone- 
ous, and  exceeduigly  pernicious,  we  propose,  in  the  following  dissertation,  to 
present  some  of  the  prominent  reasons  for  adopting  a  different  interpretation. 

That  our  design  may  be  clearly  understood,  before  subjoining  the  reasons 
proposed,  we  present  a  paraphrase  of  the  passage,  as  follows,  beginning  at 
the  seventh  verse : — 

7  We  said  above  (in  the  5th  verse)  that  the  motions  of  sin  -which  were 
ht/  the  laiv,  did  work  in  our  members,  to  bring  forth  fruit  unto  death.  What 
shall  we  say  then  ?  It  appears  the  lato  is  the  occasion  of  the  motions  of  sins, 
and  the  fruit  is  death.  Is  the  law  in  fault  ?  Is  aggravated  guilt  and  death 
the  object,  and  legitimate  result,  of  the  application  of  law  ?  God  forbid ;  on 
the  contrary,  its  object,  and  actual  result  is  not  the  promotion,  but  the  ex- 
posure, of  sin.  I  should  never  have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  sin,  but  by 
the  light  of  the  law  ;  where  there  is  no  law  tliere  is  no  sin :  where  the  light 
of  the  law  (i.  e.  the  expression  of  the  -will  of  God)  is  feeble,  as  in  the  case 


PAUL  NOT  CABNAL.  '  '  189 

of  the  heathen,  there  consciousness  of  sin  is  correspondingly  feeble :  and 
where,  as  in  my  own  case,  the  light  of  the  law,  by  direct  revelation,  becomes 
strong,  the  consciousness  of  sin,  if  the  sinful  principle  remains,  becomes  cor- 
respondingly strong.  I  should  never  have  recognized  the  existence  and  guilt 
of  forbidden  desire  in  my  heart,  if  the  law  had  not  expressly  said.  Thou  shalt 
not  covet,  (i.  e.  indulge  inordinate  desire,)  thereby  carrjdng  its  claims  be- 
yond external  action,  into  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart.  So  that  the 
law,  instead  of  being  the  efficient  cause  of  sin,  is  the  means  of  its  exposure 
and  condemnation. 

8  The  fatal  result,  therefore,  of  the  application  of  law  in  my  case,  is  to  be 
ascribed,  not  to  the  law,  but  to  my  own  wickedness.  The  sinful  principle, 
which  was  within  me  before,  instead  of  ceasing  to  exist  in  consequence  of  the 
additional  light  and  motive  of  a  revealed  law,  taking  occasion  by  the  com- 
mandment, wrought  in  me  all  manner  of  forbidden  desire.  Its  evil  nature 
was  aggravated  and  developed  by  the  opposing  claims  of  the  law.  For  be- 
fore I  came  to  a  knowledge  of  the  law,  the  sinful  principle  was  dead.  It 
made  no  manifestation  of  its  pernicious  power,  and  I  was  not  aware  of  its 
existence. 

9  At  that  time,  sin  thus  being  dead,  I  was  alive,  free  from  the  curse  of 
an  evil  conscience  and  expectation  of  wrath,  happy,  independently  of  the 
grace  of  God.  But  this  was  because  I  had  no  just  views  of  the  law.  Wlien 
the  commandment  came  home  to  my  soul,  in  its  power  and  spirituahty,  the 
sinful  principle,  which  had  been  comparatively  powerless  and  dead,  revived. 
I  became  conscious  of  its  existence  and  malignity.  As  I  have  said,  its  evil 
nature  was  aggravated  and  developed  by  the  opposing  claims  of  the  law.  As 
light  increased,  by  the  necessity  of  the  case,  so  long  as  the  sinful  principle 
remained,  its  malignity  and  fatal  power  increased.  I  became  worse  and 
worse,  my  case  more  and  more  hopeless,  till  I  sunk  into  despair  of  salvation, 
and  died. 

10  In  this  way,  the  commandment,  which  was  ordained  unto  life,  I  found 
to  be  the  occasion  (not  the  efficient  or  legitimate  cause)  of  death. 

11  It  was  my  own  wicked  heart,  that  made  the  increased  light  and  motive 
of  the  law,  an  occasion  of  aggravated  perversity.  I  was  deceitfully  led  on 
by  it,  from  one  degree  of  wickedness  to  another,  till  I.  sunk  down  under 
hopeless  condemnation. 

12  Wherefore,  notwithstanding  the  fatal  result  of  its  application,  we  must 
pronounce  the  law  holy,  and  the  commandment  holy,  just,  and  good. 

13  As  there  is  a  difficulty  in  discerning  how  a  thing  can  be  good,  and  yet 
be  the  occasion  of  evil,  that  we  may  view  the  subject  in  all  its  bearings,  we 
repeat  the  question  in  substance,  which  was  asked  at  the  outset.  How  can 
we  pronounce  the  law  holy,  just  and  good,  and .  yet  affirm  that  the  conse- 
quence of  its  application  was  death  to  my  soul  ?  Was  that  which  is  good 
made  death  unto  me  ?  God  forbid.  Death,  as  we  have  repeatedly  said,  is 
no  part  of  the  design,  or  legitimate  result,  of  the  law,  but  must  be  ascribed, 
m  my  case,  wholly^  to  my  own  wickedness.  In  this  view  of  the  subject,  the 
mahgnity  of  the  sinful  principle  is  clearly  developed.  What  greater  proof 
can  we  have  of  its  evil  nature,  than  the  fact  that  it  works  death  by  that 
which  is  good  ?     A  good  principle  extracts  good  from  that  which  is  evil. 


190 


PAUL   NOT   CARNAL. 


But  here  the  reverse  is  true.     Evil  is  extracted  from  that  which  is  good. 
Thus  siu  by  the  commandment  becomes  exceeding  sinful. 

14  But  to  trace  out  more  definitely,  and  in  detail,  the  process  by  which 
the  law  becomes  an  occasion  of  death,  we  say  the  fatal  result  flows  from  the 
incongruity^  or  opposition,  which  exists  between  my  nature,  or  condition,  as 
a  man  in  the  flesh,  and  the  claims  of  the  law.  For  the  law  is  spiritual — its 
claims  extend  to  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart — it  proposes  to  control 
the  spirit;  of  course  its  claims  can  be  met  only  by  one  whose  spirit  is  free, 
predominant  over  the  flesh:  whereas  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin.  My  in- 
ferior propensities  predominate  over  my  spiritual  nature,  and  lead  captive 
my  will.  In  this  state,  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  obey  the  law.  They  that 
are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God.  My  spiritual  nature  must  predominate, 
before  I  can  obey  a  law  whose  claims  are  spiritual.  So  that  the  law,  shed- 
ding its  light  upon  me  while  in  the  flesh,  only  shows  me  the  impossibility  of 
obedience  and  salvation,  so  long  as  the  flesh  predominates  over  the  spirit. 
Remaining  then  in  the  flesh,  the  bond  slave  of  sin,  the  law,  which  I  know  is 
spiritual,  and  which  my  conscience  approves  as  holy,  just  and  good,  only 
wakes  the  sinful  principle  within  me  to  tenfold  malignity  and  power. 

15  Thus  I  am  brought  into  a  deadly  warfare  with  myself.  The  com- 
mandment, like  a  two-edged  sword,  pierces  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of 
soul  and  spirit.  I  become,  as  it  were,  two  beings.  Reason,  conscience,  and 
constitutional  self-love,  take  sides  with  God  and  the  law.  My  inferior  pro- 
pensities, having  the  will  under  their  control,  array  themselves  against  their 
claims.  A  conflict  commences  between  my  spiritual  and  carnal  nature,  in 
which  the  flesh  uniformly  triumphs.  For  that  which  I  do  under  the  control 
of  the  flesh,  as  a  rational  being  enlightened  by  the  law,  I  allow  not.  What 
conscience  and  self-love  constrain  me  to  wish  to  do,  that  do  I  not;  but  what 
I  hate,  because  I  know  the  guilt  and  ruin  it  brings  upon  me,  that  do  I. 

16  It  is  plain,  then,  if  I  do  that  w^hich,  as  a  rational  being,  I  would  not, 
I  consent  unto  the  law,  that  it  is  good,  perceiving  its  adaptation  to  secure 
the  well  being  of  my  spiritual  nature,  notwithstanding  the  opposition  of  my 
carnal  nature  and  will  to  its  claims. 

17  Now  then  it  is  no  more  I  that  act  thus,  in  opposition  to  conscience  and 
the  law,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.  The  time  w^as,  when  reason,  conscience 
and  self-love  consented  to  the  course  of  my  carnal  nature  and  my  will,  and 
then  it  might  be  said,  J  did  what  was  done.  But  now  my  being  is  divided  ; 
I  have,  as  it  were,  two  wills,  at  war  with  each  other;  and  the  best  half  of  my 
nature  is  arrayed  on  the  side  of  that  will  which  opposes  my  actual  doings. 
My  fleshly  propensities,  though  they  control  the  will,  are  unworthy  to  be 
called  the  man.  i,  as  a  spiritual  being,  no  longer  consent  to  my  own  ac- 
tions. Sin  that  dwelleth  in  me,  subjecting  the  whole  man  to  its  control, 
drags  me  into  conflict  with  the  law.  Wliile  the  noblest  of  my  powers,  those 
which  most  truly  constitute  rue  a  man,  take  sides  with  the  law,  my  actions 
are  uniformly  in  opposition  to  its  claims.  Truly  this  exhibits  the  exceeding 
sinfulness  of  sin. 

18  I  now  know,  since  the  spiritual  claims  of  the  law  have  enhghtencd  my 
understanding,  and  developed  my  sinful  condition,  that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my 
flesh,  in  the  carnal  nature  which  belongs  to  me  as  an  unregenerate  man, 


PAUL  NOT  CARNAL.  191 

tliere  dwelleth  no  good  thing.  It  has  come  to  be  a  certainty  witli  me,  that 
I  shall  never  perform  a  right  action  while  in  the  flesh.  When  I  look  upon. 
the  goodness  of  the  law  of  God,  and  upon  the  happiness  of  its  subjects,  as  a 
rational  being,  I  long  to  obey  it.  To  will  is  present  with  me.  My  hunger- 
ings  after  righteousness  even  exhibit  themselves  in  efforts,  and  resolutions  of 
obedience,  which  either  contemplate  mere  specific  action,  without  a  radical 
change  of  principle,  or  respect  future,  and  not  present  obedience,  and,  of 
course,  prove  abortive.     How  to  perform  that  which  is  good,  I  find  not. 

19  For  the  good  that  I  would,  I  do  not,  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not, 
that  I  do.  After  all  my  wishes  and  resolutions,  I  act  uniformly  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  dictates  of  my  better  nature. 

20  And  I  say  again,  if  I  do  that  which  I  would  not — if  my  spiritual  nature, 
that  which  only  deserves  to  be  called  the  man^  approves  the  law  which  con- 
demns my  actions, — ^it  is  no  more  J  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me, 
which,  in  thus  dragging  me,  I  may  say,  against  my  will,  into  conflict  with  the 
law,  manifests  its  exceeding  sinfulness. 

21  I  find  then  at  last,  by  the  ruinous  conflict  I  have  sketched,  I  am  forced 
upon  the  conclusion  that  sin  is  an  abiding,  universal  principle  within  me. 
The  law  which  controls  my  spirit,  is  the  very  reverse  of  that  law  which  my 
conscience  approves.  The  rule  by  which  I  live  is  this — When  I  u'ould  do 
good,  evil  is  present  with  me.  Being  the  servant  of  sin,  I  am  totally  free 
from  righteousness.   (6:  20.) 

22  I  hesitate  not  to  use  the  expression — '  When  I  ivoidd  do  good^ — for  I 
delight  in  the  law  of  God,  after  the  inner  man.  I  see  its  goodness  and  glory, 
and  long  to  be  a  subject  of  it.  I  look  into  the  kingdom  which  it  sways,  and 
involuntarily  dehght  in  the  beauty  of  the  prospect.  I  wish  an  omnipotent 
arm  would  take  me  up  and  place  me  beyond  the  gate,  within  its  precincts. 

23  But  how  to  enter  that  gate,  I  find  not.  A  present  and  full  surrender 
of  the  sinful  principle,  a  triumph  of  my  spiritual  over  my  carnal  nature,  alone 
can  give  me  admission  to  that  kingdom.  Here,  on  the  very  threshold  of 
obedience  and  salvation,  I  find  myself  morally  impotent.  I  see  a  law  in  my 
carnal  nature,  warring  against  the  law  of  God  and  of  my  own  spiritual  nature, 
and  triumphing  in  the  conflict,  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin 
and  death.  Thus  sin,  which  was  dead  when  I  was  alive  without  the  law,  by 
the  coming  of  the  commandment,  has  revived,  and  with  merciless,  living  ma^ 
lignity,  is  driving  me  to  despair.     I  am  dying  to  hope  and  happiness. 

24  0  wretched  man  that  I  am !  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of 
this  death  ? 

25  (I  thank  God,  who  is  able,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  to  deliver 
a  soul  thus  sinking  to  perdition,  as  w^e  shall  see  in  the  chapter  following.)  We 
conclude  then,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  I  myself,  as  a  man  in  the 
flesh  without  Christ  and  under  law,  serve  the  law  of  God  with  my  spiritual 
nature,  that  which  constitutes  me  a  man ;  and  yet  with  my  flesh,  that  part  of 
my  nature  which  predominates,  and  controls  my  will,  I  serve  the  law  of  sin ; 
thus  according  to  the  principle  stated  at  the  beginning  of  this  discussion,  in 
the  5th  verse,  by  the  knowledge  and  approval  of  that  law  which  condemns 
my  actions,  brmging  upoji  myself  aggravated  guilt,  coiidemnation  and  death. 


192  PAUL  NOT  CARNAL. 

It  will  be  seen,  by  a  glance  at  the  foregoing  paraphrase,  that  we  view  the 
passage  in  question  as  a  description  of  the  exercises,  not  of  a  Christian,  nor 
yet  of  an  ordinary  unbeliever,  but  of  a  sinner  dying  under  the  law — of  one 
to  whom  the  commandment  has  come,  in  whom  sin  is  reviving,  and  who  is 
thus  sinking  without  a  Savior  into  hopeless  condemnation.  We  subjoin  the 
following  reasons  for  adopting  this  interpretation. 

I.  The  necessity  of  it  appears  on  the  face  of  the  language  of  the  passage. 
We  concede  that  some  of  the  expressions  are  descriptive  of  the  exercises  of 
Christians  ;  e.  g.,  'I  dehght  in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inward  man,'  &c. 
Yet  we  affirm  that  they  are  equally  descriptive  of  the  exercises  of  convicted 
sinners,  who  recognize  the  goodness  and  glory  of  the  law  which  condemns 
their  actions,  and  under  which  they  are  dying.  We  affirm  that  intellectual 
delight  in  the  law  of  God  is  the  essential  cause  of  conviction,  and  that  the 
exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin  is  never  so  fully  developed,  as  when  it  drags  its 
victim  down  to  death,  in  defiance  of  the  remonstrances  of  the  noblest  part  of 
his  nature.  To  delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inward  man,  and  yet  in 
action  unifoimly  to  serve  the  law  of  sin,  is  truly  a  '  hyperbole'  of  wicked- 
ness. (See  verse  13  in  the  original.)  Moreover  we  affirm,  that  while  the 
expressions  alleged  as  descriptive  of  Christian  experience,  are  equally  appli- 
cable to  the  exercises  of  convicted  sinners,  many  of  the  opposite  expressions, 
which  describe  the  sinful  state  of  the  character  in  question,  cannot,  without 
manifest  violence  be  apphed  to  the  experience  of  Christians  ;  e.  g.,  '  I  am 
carnal,  sold  under  sin,'  &c.  That  we  may  have  a  general  and  comparative 
view  of  the  strength  of  the  expressions  on  the  one  side  and  the  other,  we 
place  them  in  parallel  columns : 


MARKS    OF   A    SINNER. 

"  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin.  That 
which  I  do,  I  allow  not.  What  I  hate, 
that  do  I.  I  know  that  in  me  (that  is,  in 
my  flesh)  dwelleth  no  good  thing.  How 
to  perform  that  which  is  good,  I  find 
not.  The  good  that  I  would,  I  do  not. 
The  evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do. 
1  find  then  a  law  that  when  I  would  do 
good,  evil  is  present  with  me,  dec.  bring- 
ing me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin. 
O  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  &c.  With 
the  flesh  1  serve  the  law  of  sin." 


MARKS    OF   A    SAINT. 

<'  I  consent  unto  the  law,  that  it  is 
good.  It  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but 
sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.  To  will  is 
present  with  me.  I  delight  in  the  law 
of  God  after  the  inward  man.  I  thank 
God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 
With  the  mind,  I  myself  serve  the  law 
of  God." 

Note, — We  place  in  this  column  all 
the  expressions,  which  by  any  violence 
can  be  distorted  into  marks  of  Christian 
character. 

II.  The  form  of  the  argument  of  the  passage,  requires  the  interpretation 
we  propose.  Concerning  the  first  half  of  the  passage  we  have  paraphrased, 
(from  the  7th  to  the  13th  verse,)  all  are  agreed.  No  controversy  arises 
till  we  come  to  the  clause,  '  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin,'  in  verse  14.  Here 
the  question  presents  itself,  Does  the  apostle  mean  absolutely,  accordmg  •  to 
the  form  of  the  expression,  I  am  noiv,  while  writing,  (though  a  holy  servant 
of  God,)  carnal,  sold  under  sin?  If  so,  the  remamder  of  the  passage  may 
indeed  describe  the  exercises  of  a  Christian ;  and  men  may,  by  the  example 
of  the  great  apostle  of  Christianity,  claim  tie  character  of  hohness,  while 


PAUL  NOT   CARNAL.  198 


tKey  acknowledge  themselves  carnal,  and  the  bond  slaves  of  sin.  It  is  plain, 
that  the  whole  value  of  the  hypothesis  which  authorizes  this  conclusion,  de- 
pends on  the  form  of  the  expression,  '  I  ain  carnal,'  &c.  It  is  said  the  use 
of  the  present  tense  confines  the  application  of  the  expression  to  Paul's 
present  character.  Here,  then,  we  come  to  the  point  on  which  the  whole 
controversy  turns.  We  are  at  issue  concerning  the  time  to  which  Paul  re- 
ferred, when  he  said — 'lam  carnal.'  We  allege,  before  entering  upon  pos- 
itive argument,  as  proof  that  the  mere  forin  of  the  expression  determines 
nothing,  the  following  passage — '  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save 
sinners,  of  whom  I  am  chief.'-  1  Tim.  1:  15.  Here  the  same  apostle  who 
elsewhere  calls  God  and  man  to  witness  the  holiness  of  his  life,  (1  Thess.  2: 
10,)  declares  himself,  if  the  use  of  the  present  tense  necessarily  respects 
present  character,  to  be  now,  while  writing  to  his  own  son  in  the  faith,  the 
chief  of  sinners.  This  will  not  be  pretended :  of  course  the  argument  from 
the  mere  form  of  expression  is  abandoned.  Now  then,  if  by  any  other  means 
we  can  ascertain  the  time  to  which  Paul  refers,  when  he  says  '  I  am  carnal,' 
we  settle  the  question  concerning  the  interpretation  of  the  whole  passage  : 
for  the  remaining  language  of  the  disputed  paragraph  is  in  immediate  con- 
nexion with,  and  dependent  on,  this  first  expression. 

We  resort,  then,  to  the  preceding  context — to  the  chain  of  argument,  of 
which  this  expression  constitutes  a  link.  Observe,  verse  14  is  introduced 
with  a  causative,  '/or.'  It  contains,  then,  a  reason  for  some  preceding 
truth.  What  is  that  truth  ?  Obviously  this  :  '  The  consequence  of  the 
application  of  the  law  to  my  soul,  while  in  the  flesh,  was  death  ;  yet  the  law 
was  not  in  fault,  for  the  law  is  wholly  good.  The  procurement  of  this  fatal 
result  is  attributable  wholly  to  my  own  Avickedness,  the  exceeding  malignity 
of  which  is  thus  developed.  [Here  comes  in  the  clause  under  consideration.] 
For  the  law  is  spiritual ;  but  I  am  carnal,'  &c.  It  is  plain  that  the  opposition 
which  existed  between  the  spiritual  claims  of  the  law,  and  the  carnal  condi- 
tion of  the  person  whose  case  is  described,  is  given  as  a  reason  why  death 
resulted  from  the  application  of  the  law.  That  opposition  must  have  prece- 
ded the  death  which  it  wrought.  The  cause  must  precede  the  efiect.  We 
may  paraphrase  then  the  9th  verse,  which  is  a  summary  statement  of  the 
whole  matter  in  discussion,  thus  :  '  I  was  alive  without  the  law  once ;  but 
when  the  commandment,  in  its  spirituality,  came,  the  opposition  of  my  car- 
nal nature  awoke,  sin  revived  and  I  died :  for  the  law  is  spiritual ;  but  I  am 
carnal,  sold  under  sin.'  The  carnal  nature  and  the  captivity  to  sin,  then,  of- 
which  he  speaks  in  the  14th  verse,  preceded  the  death  of  which  he  speaks  in 
the  9th  verse.  '  I  am  carnal,'  means,"  if  there  is  any  logic  in  Paul's  argu- 
ment, '  I  was  carnal,  when  I  was  alive  without  the  law,  before  the  com- 
mandment came  and  sin  revived  and  I  died.'  We  need  not  go  into  an  ar- 
gument here,  to  prove  that  this  was  before  his  conversion.  As  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  whole  disputed  passage  turns  upon  this  point,  we  conclude  the 
argument  of  it  requires  our  interpretation. 

A  shadow  of  an  argument  for  the  interpretation  which  makes  the  expres- 
sion, '  I  am  carnal,'  descriptive  of  Paul  as  a  Christian,  has  been  drawn  from 
a  case  of  supposed  analogy,  in  which,  it  is  alleged,  Paul  calls  saintSj  car- 
24 


1^4 


I>AITL  NOT  CARNAL, 


nal.  1  Cor.  3:  1 — 3.  This  is  not  the  place  for  proving,  as  we  might  abun- 
dantly prove,  that  this  allegation  is  untrue.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  present 
purpose  to  deny  that  the  charge  which  Paul  brings  against  the  Corinthians, 
is,  in  any  way,  proof  even  of  the  probability  that  he  himself  was  carnal.-^ 
On  the  contrary,  the  very  fact  that  he  rebuked  the  Corinthians  for  being 
carnal,  is  evidence,  to  those  who  beUeve  the  apostle  a  consistent  Christian, 
that  he  was  not  chargeable  with  the  same  sin  himself.  If,  in  saying  in  the 
7th  of  Romans,  *  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin,'  the  apostle  described  his  own 
character  and  condition  as  a  Christian,  what  could  hinder  the  Corinthians 
from  retorting,  and  that  justly,  his  rebuke  ?— '  Physician,  heal  thyself.' 
*  Thou  hypocrite,  first  cast  out  the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye  ;  then  shalt 
thou  see  clearly  to  cast  out  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother's  eye.'  '  You  sharply 
rebuke  us  for  external  action,  which  you  suppose  to  be  proof  that  we  are 
carnal ;  and  yet,  in  your  epistle  to  the  Romans  (7:  14)  you  say,  without 
qualification,  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin.  We  have  better  proof,  in  your 
own  confession^  that  you  are  carnal,  than  you  have  in  our  external  actions^ 
that  we  are  carnal.'  Moreover,  the  context  of  the  passage  under  consider- 
ation most  decisively  proves  (if  Paul's  oAvn  words  will  be  received  as  proof) 
that  he  was  not  carnal*  In  the  preceding  chapter  (1  Cor.  2:  6—16)  he 
declares  that  the  wisdom  which  he  communicated  to  those  who  were  perfect, 
was  communicated  to  him  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  was  of  such  a  nature 
that  it  could  be  received  only  by  those  who  have  the  Spirit.  He  then  con- 
trasts the  natural,  mth  the  spiritual  man,  exhibits  the  superiority  of  the 
spiritual  man  in  respect  to  understanding  and  authority  of  judgment,  and 
claims  th^t  character  for  himself.  '  We  have  the  mind  of  Christ,'  says  he  ; 
i.  e.  '  We  are  spiritual,  being  instructed  by  the  Ploly  Ghost,  and  qualified 
to  instruct  even  the  perfect,  and  to  judge  and  rebuke  the  carnal.'  ^And,' 
he  proceeds,  '  I,  brethren,  could  not  speak  unto  you  as  unto  spiritual,  but 
as  unto  carnal' — evidently  claiming  for  himself  exemption  from  the  charge 
which  he  laid  against  those  whom  he  thus  undertook  to  reprove. 

III.  The  obvious  contrast  between  the  passage  in  question,  (Rom.  7: 
7 — 25,)  and*  the  description  of  the  character  and  privileges  of  Christians, 
which  follows  it,  in  the  8th  chapter,  requires  the  mterpretation  we  propose. 
Our  argument  is  this  :  It  is  acknowledged  by  all,  that  the  8th  chapter  de- 
scribes the  character  and  condition  of  Christians.  We  say,  if  this  be  true, 
the  7th  describes  one  who  is  not  a  Christian  ;  and  this  we  show  by  a  contrast 
of  the  passages,  placed  in  parallel  columns,  as  follows  : 


EIGHTH   CHAPTEK. 

To  be  carnally  minded  is  death.  The 
carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God. — 
They  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please 
God.  Ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the 
spirit. 

The  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  hath 
made  me^free  from  the  law  of  sin  and 
death.  Ye  have  not  received  the  spirit 
of  bondage  again  to  fear. 


SEVENTH    CHAPTEK. 

I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin. 


I  see  a  law  in  my  members,  warring 
against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bring, 
ing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin. 
1  serve  with  the  flesh  the  law  of  sin. 


EIGHTH    CHAPTER. 


PAUL   NOT  CARNAL.  195 


SEVENTH    CHAPTER. 


To  will  is  present  with  me,  but  how 
to  -perform  that  which  is  good  I  find  not. 
For  the  good  that  I  would,  I  do  not ; 
but  the  evil  which  I  would  not,  that 
I  do. 

O  wretched  man  that  I  am!  who 
shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this 
death  1 


What  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it 
was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God  send- 
ing  his  own  Son,  condemned  sin  in  the 
flesh,  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law 
might  be  fulfilled  in  us. 

To  be  spiritually  minded  is  life  and 
peace.  We  know  that  all  things  work 
together  for  good  to  them  that  love  God. 
We  are  more  than  conquerors,  through 
him  that  hath  loved  us. 

The  accounts,  then,  of  the  two  characters,  stand  thus.  The  man  de- 
scribed in  the  7th  chapter  is  carnal,  sold  under  sin — led  captive  by  a  law 
that  wars  against  his  own  conscience  and  the  law  of  God — of  course  under 
condemnation — acting  in  every  instance  contrary  to  the  dictates  of  his  own 
better  nature — unutterably  wretched.  The  man  described  in  the  8th  chap- 
ter, is  spiritually  minded — not  in  the  flesh — delivered  from  condemnation — 
free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death — having  received,  not  the  spirit  of  bon- 
dage, but  of  adoption — in  Christ — fulfilling  the  righteousness  of  the  law — 
enjoying  life  and  peace — confident  that  all  tilings  work  for  his  good — ^made 
more  than  conqueror  through  Christ.  One  is  dying — the  other  rising  from 
the  dead.  One  is  deaUng  with  the  law  in  his  ovm  strength — the  other  is  in 
Christ,  who  is  '  the  end  of  the  law.'  In  other  words,  one  is  under  law^ — the 
other  under  grace  ;  one  is  a  sinking  sinner — the  other  a  conquering  Christiam 

The  contrast  is  too  obvious,  on  the  face  of  the  language  of  the  two  passa- 
ges, to  need  further  commentary  ;  but  we  shall  see  more  fully,  in  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph  of  our  discussion,  the  design  and  bearing  of  this  contrast, 
with  reJ^M^jj^e  to  the  general  argument  of  the  whole  epistle. 

IV.  Tme  scope  of  the  argument  of  the  epistle  requu'es  the  interpretation 
we  propose.  The  subject  of  the  epistle  is  salvation  by  grace-^the  gospel 
'  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation,  to  every  one  that  beheveth' — Christ  our 
justification  and  sanetificatio7i.  1;  16.  As  preliminary  to  an  exhibition  of 
the  way  of  salvation,  the  apostle  proves  the  depravity  of  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
1:  19 — 3:  20.  The  atonement  is  then  set  forth,  and  shown  to  be  consistent 
with  support  of  law,  as  a  ground  of  gratuitous  justification.  3:  21 — 31.  The 
relations  of  that  faith,  w^hich  is  the  condition  of  justification,  are  the  subjects 
of  the  4th  chapter.  In  the  5th  chapter,  the  apostle  mentions  the  prominent 
blessings  resulting  from  this  mode  of  salvation — peace,  hope,  patience,  '  the 
love  of  God,  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost  which  is  c/iven  to 
us,  (being  the  purchase  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  truly  as  the  pardon  he 
bestows,) — concluding  with  a  contrast  between  the  free  gift  of  Clirist,  and 
the  curse  of  Adam,  in  which  he  shows  that  the  gift  surpasses  the  curse, 
of  course  that  behevers  are  more  than  reinstated  in  the  condition  of  Adam 
before  the  fall.  The  6th  chapter  begins  with  an  inquiry  concerning  the 
moral  tendency  of  this  method  of  salvation,  whether  sin  is  consistent  with 
the  reception  of  the  gift  of  grace  ?  Having  answered  this  question,  by  as- 
suming that  the  very  profession  of  union  to  Christ  implies  final  death  to  sm, 
and  resurrection  to  newness  of  life,  in  the  14th  verse  the  apostle  e^diibitg 


19^3  PAUL  NOT  CARNAL. 

the  ground  of  the  confidence  which  believers  possess,  of  dehverance  from 
sin,  in  the  fact  that  they  are  not  under  latv,  but  under  grace;  their  salva- 
tion depends,  not  on  their  own  efforts  to  obey  the  law,  but  on  the  promised 
grace  of  God  m  Christ.  He  proceeds  to  draw  the  contrast  between  a  state 
of  sin,  and  a  state  of  grace,  making  freedom  from  sin  the  test  by  which  men 
may  know  whether  they  are  partakers  of  grace.  Ver.  16.  His  argument 
establishes  this  point:  that  under  the  gospel^  men  are  wholly  shiful,  or 
wholly  righteous.  They  that  are  servants  of  righteousness  are  free  from  sin, 
in  like  manner  as  they  that  are  the  servants  of  sin  are  free  from  righteous- 
ness. Vers.  18 — 20,  &c.  So  that  grace  gives  no  license  to  sin ;  for  grace, 
if  it  gives  any  thing,  gives  eternal  life — redemption  from  the  curse  and 
power  of  sin  forever.  In  the  first  four  verses  of  the  7th  chapter,  the  apos- 
tle shows  how  men  come  out  from  under  the  law,  and  enter  upon  a  state  of 
grace  :  viz.,  by  death,  i.  e.  despair  of  salvation  under  the  law.  As  a  mar- 
riage contract  binds  the  parties  for  life,  so  a  man's  relations  to  the  law  re- 
main as  long  as  he  lives.  Death  only  can  divorce  him  from  the  law,  and 
give  him  liberty  of  union  to  Christ.  In  the  6th  verse,  we  have  a  brief  state- 
ment of  the  condemning,  fatal  influence  of  a  law  system,  upon  men  in  the 
flesh.  In  the  6th  verse,  we  have  a  parallel  statement  of  the  deliverance  and 
blessing  of  a  state  of  grace.  The  contrast  first  suggested  in  the  14th  verse 
of  the  6th  chapter,  between  law  and  grace,  is  still  pursued,  with  a  view  to 
the  development  of  the  truth  then  intimated,  that  the  moral  tendency  of  a 
gracious^  is  far  better  than  that  of  a  legal  system.  In  the  7th  verse  the 
apostle  takes  up  the  principle  stated  in  the  5th,  and  in  the  remainder  of  the 
chapter  exhibits,  in  detail,  the  process  by  which  the  law,  which  was  ordained 
unto  Hfe,  becomes,  through  the  wickedness  of  men,  the  instrument  of  death. 
In  the  8th  chapter,  the  idea  suggested  in  the  6th  verse  of  the  7th  chapter, 
is  resumed  and  fully  developed.  The  saving,  sanctifying  power  of  the  gos- 
pel system  of  grace  is  triumphantly  exhibited ;  Christ  fully  set  forth  as  our 
sanctifieation,  as  well  as  our  justification. 

Any  one,  who  will  dwell  upon  the  general  view  of  the  argument  of  the 
epistle  thus  sketched,  will  see  without  perplexity,  the  place  and  bearing  of 
the  passage  we  have  undertaken  to  expound.  It  stands  in  the  midst  of  an 
argument  for  the  superiority  of  gra^ce  to  l.aw,  as  a  means  of  deliy^ance  frojn 
sin ;  evidently  constituting  one  side  of  the  contrast  between  the  two  systems. 
The  8th  chapter  constitutes  the  other.  On  the  one  hand,  we  have  the  law, 
instead  of  giving  sanctification  and  salvation,  aggravating  the  wickedness, 
and  securing  the  condemnation  and  death,  of  its  subject.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  have  grace  in  Christ  Jesus,  giving  liberty  and  life,  righteousness  and  eter- 
nal redemption.  The  contrast  is  a  commentary  on  the  14th  verse  of  the 
6th  chapter — '  Sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you ;  for  ye  are  not  under 
law,  but  under  grace.' 

To  show  the  absurdity  of  that  interpretation  which  regards  the  man  de- 
scribed in  7:  7 — 25,  as  a  Christian,  under  that  grace  which  delivers  from  the 
dominion  of  sin,  we  quote  a  single  clause,  (recommending  a  reperusal  of  the 
whole.)  '  I  find  a  law,  that  when  I  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me.' 
Can  it  be  imagined  that  the  wretched  man,  who  acknowledges  himself,  with- 


PAUL  NOT   CARNAL.  197 

out  qualification,  the  bond  slave  of  sin,  is  under  that  grace  whose  sanctify- 
ing poAver  the  apostle  is  endeavoring  to  recommend  ? 

V.  The  intimations  which  Paul  elsewhere  gives,  concerning  his  own  moral 
character,  are  inconsistent  with  the  interpretation  which  regards  the  passage 
in  question  as  descriptive  of  his  exercises  as  a  Christian.  In  proof  of  this, 
we  quote  the  following  passages.  '  Herein  do  I  exercise  myself  to  have  al- 
ways a  conscience  void  of  offense  toward  God,  and  toward  man.'  Acts  24: 
16.  'In  (dl  things  approving  ourselves  the  ministers  of  God — ^by  pureness 
— ^by  the  armor  of  righteousness,  on  the  right  hand,  and  on  the  left.'  2  Cor. 
6:  4 — ^7.  '  I  am  crucified  with  Christ ;  nevertheless,  I  live  ;  yet  not  I,  but 
Christ  liveth  in  me  ;  and  the  life  which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by  the 
faith  of  the  Son  of  God.'  Gal.  2:  20.  'The  world  is  crucified  unto  me,  and 
I  unto  the  world.'  Gah  6:14.  'For  me  to  live  is  Christ.'  Phil.  1:  21. 
'Brethren,  be  followers  together  of  me — for  our  conversation  is  in  heaven.' 
Phil.  3:  17 — 20.  '  I  can  do  all  things  through  Christ  which  strengtheneth 
me.'  Phil.  4: 13  ;  (comp.  7:  18,  'How  to  perform  that  which  is  good,  I  find 
not.')  '  The  Father  hath  made  us  meet  to  be  partakers  of  the  inheritance  of 
the  saints  in  light,  w^ho  hath  delivered  us  from  the  power  of  darkness.'  Col. 
1:  12,  13.  'Ye  are  witnesses,  and  God  also,  how  holily  and  justly  and  un- 
blamably  we  behaved  ourselves  among  you.'  1  Thess.  2:  19.  '  I  know  whom 
I  have  believed^  and  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able  to  keep  that  which  I  have 
committed  to  him.'  2  Tim.  1: 12.  '  I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  I  have  finish- 
ed my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith.'  2  Tim.  4:  7,  &c. 

If  Pauljpould  say  these  things  of  himself,  and  in  the  same  breath  declare, 
'  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin — how  to  perform  that  w^hich  is  good,  I  find  not 
— I  find  a  law,  that  when  I  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me,'  &c.  &c., 
we  confess  we  see  no  method  by  which  his  consistency,  or  inspiration  can  be 
maintained.  ^  :» 

KemarkS.  1.  The  interpretation  which  we  have  endeavored  to  present, 
and  sustain,  is  by  no  means  new.  It  is  often  alleged,  in  favor  of  the  ordi- 
nary views  of  this,  as  of  other  passages,  that  they  are  the  ancient  and  univer- 
sal views  of  the  Church.  We  will  not  dwell  on  the  fallacy  and  wickedness 
of  such  attempts  to  chain  the  Bible  to  tradition.  But  we  deny  the  truth  of 
the  allegation.  The  early  Fathers,  without  exception,  so  far  as  is  known, 
down  till  the  5th  century,  regarded  Bom.  7:  7' — 25,  as  applicable,  not  to  a 
Christian,  but  to  an  unregenerate  man.  Augustine  first  proposed  the  oppo- 
site interpretation,  in  the  heat  of  a  dispute  with  Pelagius,  about  natural  de- 
pravity. He  had  himself  accorded  with  the  Fathers  and  church  of  the  first 
ages  of  Christianity,  in  his  views  of  the  passage,  and  he  changed  his  inter- 
pretation, obviously  to  avoid  defeat  in  an  argument.  Pelagius  pressed  him 
with  the  expressions,  '  I  consent  unto  the  law,'  '  I  dehght  in  the  law,'  &c., 
as  proof  of  the  existence  of  something  morally  good  in  the  unregenerate 
man.  We  have  seen,  on  the  contrary,  that  these  very  expressions,  in  the 
mouth  of  one,  who,  in  every  instance,  acts  in  opposition  to  the  conviction 
which  they  disclose,  prove  him  to  be  unutterably  depraved,  a  '  hyperbole  of 
wickedness.'  '  So  that  Augustine,  needlessly,  as  well  as  wickedly,  resorted 
to  an  interpretation,  which  the  consent  of  the  Fathers,   and  his  own  common 


m 


198  PAUL  NOT  CARNAL. 

sense  had  before  rojected.  From  him,  tliis  perversion  of  the  word  of  God 
soon  gained  extensive  authority,  prevailed  over  Christendom  during  the 
darkness  of  the  middle  ages,  and  by  tradition  has  come  down  to  our  day, 
with  all  its  damnable  influence,  a  time-honored  suggestion  of  Satan.  Since 
the  daAvn  of  the  Reformation,  many  distinguished  interpreters,  from  time  to 
timo,*^iave  returned  to  the  original  interpretation,  and  it  is  noAv  the  uniform 
testimony  of  competent  biblical  students,  that  Rom.  7:  7 — 25,  describes  the 
exercises  of  an  unregenerate  man.  (For  the  authorities  on  which  this  re- 
mark is  founded,  we  refer  to  Stuart's  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans. Excursus  6.) 

2.  It  is  often  alleged,  in  favor  of  the  prevailing  interpretation  of  Rom.  7: 
7 — 25,  that  the  passage  actually  describes  the  exercises  of  true  Christians, 
whether  the  apostle  designed  such  an  application  of  it,  or  not.  We  deny 
again  the  truth  of  the  allegation.  We  fully  concede  that  the  description  is 
applicable  to  the  exercises  of  those  who  are  accounted,  by  themselves  and 
others,  true  Ohnstians :  but  it  must  be  shown  that  they  are  so  in  fact,  or 
the  allegation  cannot  stand.  How  then  shall  we  ascertain  this  point  ?  By 
traditions  of  the  church  ?  By  pubhc  opinion  ?  By  the  feelings  and  hopes 
of  the  persons  whose  character  is  in  question  ?  Shall  we,  by  any,  or  all  of 
these  tests,  determine  that  they  are  true  Christians,  and  then  try  the  word 
of  God  by  their  exercises  ?     Or  shall  we  take  the  ground  of  the  apostle — 

*  Let  God  be  true  and  every. man  a  liar' — and  leaving  traditions,  public  opin- 
ion, feelmgs  and  hopes,  betake  ourselves  at  once,  and  fearlessly,  '  to  the 
word  and  to  the  testimony,'  certainly  believing,  that  there  and  ..there  only, 
we  shall  find  a  legitimate  standard  of  Christian  experience  ?  In  a  word, 
shall  we  try  the  word  of  God  by  the  exercises  of  supposed  Christians,  or 
their  exercises  by  the  word  of  God  ?  For  the  benefit  of  those  who  regard 
the  testimony  of  Jehovah  as  paramount  to  the  traditions  and  opinions  of  all 
men,  even  of  supposed  saints,  we  cite  the  following  passages,  as  presenting 
his  standard  of  Christian  character. 

^  Whosoever  shall  break  one  of  the  least  of  these  commandments,  and 
teach  men  so,  shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  Matt.  5: 
19.  '  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the 
Mngdom  of  heaven ;  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  in  heaven.'  7: 
■21.  '  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  he  that  committeth  sin,  is  the  servant 
of  sin.'  John  8:  34.  '  Not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before  God,  but 
the  doers  of  the  law  are  justified.'  Rom.  2:  13.  'Now  if  we  be  dead  with 
•Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live  with  him :  knowing  that  Christ, 
being  raised  from  the  dead,  dieth  no  more;  death  hath  no  more  dominion 
over  him.  For  in  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once  :  but  in  that  he  liveth, 
he  liveth  unto  God.  Likewise  reckon  yourselves  to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin, 
but  ahve  unto  God.'  Rom.  6:  8 — 11.  '  When  ye  were  the  servants  of  sin, 
f  comp.  John  8:  34,  '  He  that  committeth  sin  is  the  servant  of  sin,']  ye  were 
free  from  righteousness :  but  now  being  made  free  from  sin,  ye  have  your 
fruit  unto  holiness,'  &c.  Rom.  6:  20 — 22.  '  If  we  say  we  have  fellowship 
^vith  him,  and  walk  in  darkness^  we  lie,  and  do  not  the  truth.'  1  John  1:  6. 

*  He  that  saith,  I  know  him,  and  keepeth  not  liis  commandments,  is  a  liar, 


A   HINT  TO   TEMPERANCE  MEN.  199 

and  the  truth  is  not  in  him.'  1  John  2:  4.  *  Whosoever  abideth  in  him,  sin- 
neth  not ;  whosoever  sinneth,  hath  not  seen  him,  neither  knoAvn  him.  Little 
children,  let  no  man  deceive  you;  he  that  doeth  righteousness,  is  righteous 
even  as  he  is  righteous.  He  that  committeth  sin  is  of  the  devil.  Whosoever 
is  born  of  God,  doth  not  commit  sin ;  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him :  and  he 
cannot  sin,  because  he  is  born  of  God.  In  tJds  the  children  of  G(M  are 
manifest,  and  the  children  of  the  devil :  whosoever  doeth  not  righteousness, 
is  not  of  God.'  1  John  3:  6—10. 

In  view  of  the  standard  presented  in  these  declarations  of  the  Most  High, 
we  say,  without  hesitation,  the  man  who  can  adopt  the  language  of  Rom.  7: 
T — 25,  as  descriptive  of  his  o^Yn  exercises,  is  not  a  Christian.  If  he  that 
doeth  not  righteousness  is  not  of  God,  and  hereby  the  children  of  the  devil 
are  manifest,  surely  the  man  who  can  say,  '  How  to  perform  that  which  is 
good,  I  find  not,'  is  a  child  of  the  devil. 

Finally — Wo  believe  the  common  perversion  of  the  passage  we  have  en- 
deavored to  expound,  has  done  more  for  the  ruin  of  the  church  and  the 
damnation  of  souls,  than  any  other  single  device  of  the  adversaries  of  God. 
The  supposed  exclamation  of  the  holy  apostle,  '  0  !  wretched  man  that  I  am,' 
is  the  watch-word  of  wicked  behevers — the  defensive  talisman  of  all  who  roll 
sin  as  a  sweet  morsel  under  their  tongues. 


§26.    A  HINT  TO  TEMPERANCE  MEN. 

So  long  as  the  rulers  of  public  opinion  in  the  religious  world,  hold  up  the 
7th  chapter  of  Romans  as  the  standard  of  legitimate  Christian  experience,. 
it  cannot  be  expected  that  vigorous  and  permanent  advances  will  be  made  in 
any  department  of  moral  reformation.  The  spiritual  impotence  there  de- 
scribed, if  tolerated  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  church,  will  surely  manifest  it- 
self with  irresistible  power  of  corruption,  in  all  those  classes  of  society  which 
surround  the  church,  and  depend  on  it  for  moralizing  influences.  If  the 
Christian,  quickened  by  the  grace  of  God,  still  allows  himself  to  say  in  re- 
gard to  his  religious  obligations,  '  The  good  that  I  would  I  do  not,  and  the 
evil  I  would  not,  that  I  do,'  why  should  he  not  expect  that  the  worldlings 
around  him,  dead  as  they  are  in  trespasses  and  sins,  will  exhibit  equal  or 
greater  laxity  of  principle,  even  in  regard  to  their  social  and  moral  obliga- 
tions ?  The  thief,  as  well  as  the  Christian  sinner,  may  say,  by  way  of  ac- 
counting for  his  transgressions,  '  I  see  a  law  in  my  members,  warring  against 
the  law  of  my  mind  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin :'  and 
if  this  is  an  admissible  excuse  for  the  one,  so  that  he  is  justified  before  God,- 
why  should  it  not  also  shield  the  other  from  the  judgment  of  man,  and  the  -  -' 
vengeance  of  the  law  ? 

What  avails  it  to  preach  against  the  various  forms  of  external  sin,  while- 
the  great,  radical  vice  of  the  heart,  moral  imhecility^  is  openly  tolerated,  and  ^' 


200  A   HINT  TO   TEMPERANCE  MEN. 

defended  by  the  preachers  themselves  ?  Yet  this  is  just  what  a  large  por- 
tion of  our  reUgious  teachers  are  doing.  They  announce  to  the  world  that 
they  are  slaves  to  sin,  (according  to  the  supposed  apostolic  model,  in  Rom. 
7:  7 — 25,)  powerless  against  temptation,  approving  and  desiring  to  keep, 
but  invincibly  prone  to  break  the  commandments  of  God  ;  and  with  this 
groveling  confession  on  their  tongues,  they  turn  upon  '  poor  sinners,'  and 
require  them  to  keep  the  Sabbath,  to  abstain  from  profanity,  lewdness  and 
intemperance,  to  forsake  all  their  darling  lusts,  and  lead  a  life  of  prayer 
and  benevolence.  Surely,  these  are  they  who  '  lade  men  with  burdens 
grievous  to  be  borne,  and  they  themselves  touch  not  the  burdens  with  one  of 
their  fingers.' 

Let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  the  bearing  of  this  miserable  mistake  about 
the  7th  chapter  of  Romans,  on  the  cause  of  temperance.  Suppose  that  a 
poor  captive  of  alcohol,  one  who  has  broken  all  sorts  of  resolutions  and 
pledges  under  the  pressure  of  appetite,  in  the  anguish  of  a  sober  hour  takes 
up  the  Bible,  and  searches  its  pages  for  something  applicable  to  his  case. 
He  reads  Rom.  7:  7 — 25,  and  finds  in  its  language  the  very  echo  of  his  daily 
experience.  To  accommodate  it  to  his  peculiar  infirmity,  he  paraphrases  it 
thus :  '  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  [the  love  of  liquor.]  That  which  I  do  [viz. 
tippling,]  I  allow  not :  for  what  I  would,  [viz.  keep  my  pledge,]  that  do  I 
not ;  but  what  I  hate,  [viz.  drunkenness,]  that  do  I.  If  then  I  do  that 
which  I  would  not,  I  consent  unto  the  law^  [of  the  temperance  society,]  that 
it  is  good.  Now  then  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  [the  love  of  liquor]  that 
dwelleth  in  me.  For  I  know  that  in  me,  that  is  in  my  [rum-ruined]  flesh, 
dwelleth  no  good  thing ;  for  to  will  [total  abstinence]  is  present  with  me  ; 
but  how  to  perform  I  find  not ;  for  the  good  that  I  would,  [viz.  sober  living,] 
that  do  I  not ;  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not,  [viz.  tavern  haunting,]  that  I 
do.  Now  if  I  do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  [the  love 
of  liquor]  that  dwelleth  in  me.  I  find  then  a  law  that  when  I  would  [keep 
sober,  the  rum  botT;le]  is  present  with  me.  For  I  delight  in  the  [doctrines 
of  temperance]  after  the  inward  man  ;  but  I  see  another  law  in  my  [stomach] 
warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the 
[enchantments  of  alcohol.]  0  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who  shall  deliver 
me  from  [this  brutal  appetite  ?']  The  commentators  tell  the  poor  wretch 
that  Paul  talked  in  this  drivelling  way  all  his  days  :  his  minister  tells  him  so  :" 
all  his  Christian  neighbors  tell  him  so.  He  learns  that  this  is  the  common 
language  of  '  the  saints'  of  the  present  day — '  from  the  least  of  them  even 
unto  the  greatest.'  How  naturally  he  may  say  to  himself,  '  If  Paul,  the 
best  example  of  Christian  energy,  was  thus  morally  impotent ;  if  all  Christen- 
dom thus  unblushingly  avows  its  slavery  to  sin,  why  should  I  think  of 
overcoming  the  lusts  of  the  flesh  ?  Why  should  I  be  ashamed  of  the  beastly 
bondage  in  which  I  groan  ?'  Under  the  influence  of  such  teachings  and 
reasonings,  resolutions  and  pledges  will  be  but  chaff  to  the  winds.  We  ven- 
ture to  predict  that  the  temperance  reformation  will  be  nothing  but  a  series 
of  splendid  failures,  till,  either  the  church  changes  its  doctrine  on  Rom.  7: 
7 — 25,  or  the  world  leaves  the  church  in  the  rear,  adopts  a  new  standard 
of  moral  energy,  and  goes  up  to  the  battle  against  lust,  in  the  strength  of 
Ood  and  of  common  sense. 


§27.    PAUL'S  VIEWS  OF  LAW. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  Paul  thoroughly  understood  the  great  doc- 
trines of  Christianity ;  and  as  his  writings  are  chiefly  doctrinal,  and  were 
evidently  designed  to  exhibit  his  entire  system  of  theology,  we  may  reasonar 
bly  expect  to  find  in  them,  if  any  where,  a  satisfactory  decision  of  the  great 
question,  which  has  been  so  much  agitated  in  modern  times,  respecting  the 
legitimate  office  of  the  law.  There  are  indeed,  as  Peter  observes,  '  many 
things  in  his  epistles,  hard  to  be  understood ;'  and  it  is  needful,  in  order 
that  we  may  safely  attempt  to  interpret  him,  that  w^e  prove  ourselves  by  self- 
examination,  to  be  neither  '  unlearned  nor  unstable.'  That  his  doctrines 
have  been  wrested  by  persons  of  this  character,  even  to  the  destruction  of 
themselves  and  many  others,  is  not  to  be  doubted  by  any  one  who  observes 
the  opposite  extremes,  into  which  modern  cfeputants  about  law  have  run. 
With  some,  Paul's  whole  doctrine  on  the  subject  seems  to  be  crowded  into 
that  one  saying — '  Ye  are  not  under  laiv^  but  under  grace ;'  and  all  the 
limitations  of  that  saying,  which  are  found  elsewhere  in  his  writings  and 
practice,  are  carefully  kept  out  of  view\  With  others,  he  is  allowed  to 
speak  for  himself  only  in  that  other  saying — '  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law 
through  faith  ?  God  forbid :  yea,  we  establish  the  laiv  ;'  and  whatever  else 
he  has  said  that  runs  counter  to  the  apparent  meaning  of  this,  is  either  wres- 
ted into  agreement  with  it,  or  condemned  as  antinomianism.  Bearing  in 
mind  that  there  are  in  all  cases,  at  least  ttvo  wrong  ways,  and  only  owe  right 
one,  and  that  the  right  way  generally  lies  between  the  two  wrong  ones,  we 
propose  to  pass  in  review  all  the  passages  in  the  writings  of  Paul,  which 
seem  to  have  any  direct  bearing  on  the  subject  of  law, — adding  such  re- 
marks as,  in  our  judgment,  they  demand.  ^ 

I.  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  It  will  be  impossible  in  the  compass  to 
which  we  are  lunited,  and  indeed  it  is  unneccessary,  to  cjuote  the  entire  ar- 
gument of  the  apostle  in  this  epistle,  extending  as  it  does  through  eleven 
chapters.  We  shall  simply  give  an  abstract  of  the  long  and  general  pas- 
sages referring  to  law^,  and  connect  them  by  quoting  such  as  are  shorter  and 
more  pointed.  ^ 

In  the  second  chapter,  and  a  part  of  the  third,  to  ver.  19,  Paul  proves  that 
all  men  are  condemned  by  law ;  the  Jews  by  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the 
Gentiles  by  the  law  of  nature.  '  Therefore,'  says  he,  'by  the  deeds  of  the 
law,  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight ;  for  hy  the  law  is  the  knoivledge 
of  sin.  But  now  the  righteousness  of  God,  ivithout  the  law^  is  manifested, 
being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets.'  Chap.  3:  20,  21.  We 
notice  here  tAvo  points:  1,  that  the  office  of  the  law  is  conviction^  and  not 
justification ;  2,  that  the  righteousness  of  God,  revealed  in  the  gospel,  is 
independent  of  the  law.  After  showing  that  this  righteousness  excludes  ^ 
boasting  in  the  Jews,  because  it  is  independent  of  their  law,  and  because  it 
is  the  righteousness  of  Qod — who  is  God  of  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  the  Jews 
— ^he  asks, '  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith  ?  God  forbid ;  yea, 
25 


202 

we  establish  the  la^Y.'  Ver.  31.  If  this  last  assertion  rests,  for  its  proof,  on 
any  thing  that  has  gone  before  it,  it  must  be  on  one  or  both  of  these  two 
things,  viz :  1,  the  law  is  estabhshed  by  the  righteousness  of  God,  because 
the  law  and  the  prophets  '  witnessed'  that  righteousness,  and  so  their  testi- 
mony is  established  by  it ;  and  2,  the  law  is  estabhshed,  because  the  right- 
eousness of  God  of  course  perfectly /?//^7s  the  laAV,  though  it  be  independcEt 
of  it.  There  is  nothing  here  from  which  it  can  be  argued  that  the  law  is 
estahUshed  as  a  Queans  of  producing  righteousness.  On  the  contrary,  this 
is  plahily  denied  in  what  goes  before  ;  and  if  true,  would  utterly  subvert  the 
apostle's  argument. 

The  case  of  Abraham  i&  next  taken  up  and  tried  by  the  principles  which 
have  been  stated.  Qlie  apostle  concludes  his  argument  thus : — '  The  promise 
that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to  Abraham,  oi  to  his  seed, 
through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteousness  of  faith.  For  if  they  which 
are  of  the  laiv  he  heirs,  faith  is  made  void,  aiid  the  promise  made  of  none 
effect :  because  the  law  worketh  wrath :  for  where  7io  law  is,  there  is  no 
transgression.''  4:  13 — 15.  We  perceive  that  Paul's  object  here,  as  before, 
is  to  clear  the  '  righteousness  of  faith'  of  all  dependence  on  the  law.  More- 
over, he  shows  that  the  law  is  established,  not  by  being  made  a  means  of 
producing  righteousness,  but  by  giving  place  to  a  righteousness  which  is  in- 
dependent of  it :  since,  if  the  righteousness  of  believers  depended  on  law, 
the  law  and  promise  both  would  be  made  void  ;  because  thelaiv  pjroduces  no 
righteousness,  but  its  opposite,  wrath.  Let  the  reader  notice  the  increasing 
plamness  of  Paul's  language  about  the  operation  of  law.  In  the  preceding 
chapter  he  simply  says,  '  By  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin.'  Here  he  de- 
clares more  positively  that  '  the  law  worketh  wrath  ;'  evidently  meaning  the 
opposite  of  obedience.  In  the  next  chapter- — and  in  the  next  passage  that 
need  be  noticed  in  this  examination — ^he  goes  still  further,  by  affirming  that 

'  THE  LAW  ENTERED,  THAT  THE  OFFENSE  MIGHT  ABOUND.'  5:  20.   We  haV8 

here  an  unequivocal  statement  of  his  views  of  the  legitimate  office  of  law, 
and  of  God's  design  in  employing  it.  With  such  views,  Paul  consistently 
held,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  true  way  to  establish  the  law  is  to  remove  it, 
and  put  the  righteousness  of  God  in  its  place  ;  and  the  true  way  to  mdlify 
the  law  is  to  continue  its  condemning  operation,  and  so  perpetuate  trans- 
gression. 

In  the  next  passage  referring  to  the  subject  of  law,  we  find  the  application 
of  the  foregoing  principles: — 'jSin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you;   Fos, 

YE  ARE  NOT  UNDER  THE  LAW,  BUT  UNDER  GRACE.'  6:  14.   If  they  were 

under  law  there  would  be  no  hope  of  their  deliverance  ;  because  '  by  the  law 
is  the  knowledge  of  sin' — '  the  law  worketh  wrath' — '  the  law  entered,  that 
the  offense  might  abound.' 

The  apostle  here  introduces  by  a  question,  the  most  iiatural  objection  to 
his  doctrine  : — '  Shall  we  sin,  because  we  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under 
grace  V  His  answer,  rightly  understood,  most  effectually  closes  the  mouths 
of  those  who  might  be  disposed  thus  to  pervert  his  language.  *  Know  ye 
not,  that  to  whom  ye  yield  yourselves  servants  to  obey,  his  servants  ye  are 
to  whom  ye  obey ;  whether  of  sin  unto  death,  or  obedience  unto  righteous- 


Paul's  views  op  laav.  208 

ness  ?'  The  word  'yield,'*  in  this  passage,  describes  the  initial  act  of  sur- 
render. The  expression,  '  Jiis  servants  ye  are^  describes  the  bondage  which 
is  the  consequence.  The  first  part  of  the  passage  may  be  paraphrased  thus — 
'  Know  ye  not,  that  after  ye  have  let  yourselves  to  service,  ye  are  no  longer 
your  oion  masters  f  Peter  expresses  the  same  idea,  (2epis.  2:  19,) — '  Of 
whom  a  man  is  overcome,  of  the  same  is  he  brought  in  bondage. "*  The  prin- 
ciple involved  in  these  sayings  is  familiar  to  some  theologians.  We  have  fre- 
quently heard  preachers  labor  to  prove,  that  after  a  man  has  once  given  him- 
self up  to  the  power  of  sin,  he  has  no  longer  in  himself  the  moral  ability  to 
break  his  bondage,  and  can  be  released  only  by  a  higher  power  than  that 
which  enslaves  him.  It  is  true  this  principle  is  commonly  applied  to  the 
power  of  evil ;  but  with  equal  propriety  it  may  be  apphed  to  the  power  of 
good  ;  and  so  Paul  actually  applies  it.  '  Know  ye  not,  that  to  whom  ye  let 
yourselves,  his  servants  ye  are,  whether  of  sin  unto  death,  or  of  obedience 
tmto  righteousness  f  Extending  the  application  of  Peter's  saying  to  good, 
as  well  as  to  evil,  Paul  would  say — '  If  a  man  is  overcome  of  Satan,  he  is 
brought  in  bondage  to  Satan.  Jf  he  is  overcome  of  G-od,  he  is  brought  in 
bondage  to  Grod.^  Now  it  is  fairly  implied  in  the  language  which  occasioned 
the  question  under  consideration,  that  believers  have  been  overcome  of  God 
— have  let  themselves  to  him.  Paul  does  not  say  simply,  '  Ye  are  not  under 
law ;'  he  adds — '  but  under  grace  :"*  and  that  addition  amounts  to  this : 
— '  Ye  have  surrendered  yourselves  to  God,  and  are  no  longer  your  own 
masters.'  ^  Being  made  free  from  sin,'  says  he  in  a  subsequent  verse,  '  ye 
v^QVG  enslaved*  to  righteousness.'  We  may  perceive,  then,  the  pertinence 
of  his  answer  and  the  safety  of  his  doctrine.  Whoever  is  '  under  grace,* 
being  '  enslaved  to  righteousness,'  has  no  disposition,  and  of  course  no  moral 
power,  to  take  advantage  of  the  fact  that  he  is  '  not  under  law,'  for  sinful 
purposes.  Whoever  is  not  '  under  grace,'  has  no  authority  from  the  lan- 
guage of  Paul,  to  say  he  is  '  not  under  law.'  To  such,  his  language  is  not 
addressed.  If  they  apply  it  to  themselves,  *  and  pervert  it  to  serve  their 
lusts,  they  do  it  at  their  own  peril.     Paul  is  not  responsible. 

That  none  may  mistake  in  this  matter,  and  suppose  themelves /r^e /ro??* 
laiv,  while  yet  they  are  not  under  grace,  Paul  next  proceeds  to  point  out  the 
only  legitimate  way  of  obtaining  a  divorce  from  the  law.  '  Know  ye  not, 
brethren,  (for  I  speak  to  them  that  know  the  law,)  how  that  the  law  hath  do- 
minion over  a  man  as  long  as  he  liveth?  For  the  woman  which  hath  an  husband 
is  bound  by  the  law  to  her  husband,  so  long  as  he  liveth  ;  but  if  her  husband 
be  dead,  she  is  loosed  from  the  law  of  her  husband.  So  then,  if  while  her 
husband  liveth,  she  be  married  to  another  man,  she  shall  be  called  an  adul- 
teress :  but  if  her  husband  be  dead,  she  is  free  from  that  law,  so  that  she  is 
no  adulteress,  though  she  be  married  to  another  man.  Wherefore,  my  breth- 
ren, ye  also  are  become  dead  to  the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ ;  that  ye 
should  be  married  to  another,  even  to  him  who  is  raised  from  the  dead,  that 

*  This  is  the  most  literal  translation  of  the  original.  The  critical  reader  will  observe 
that,  throng-hout  the  passage  in  question,  (from  ver.  17 — 22,)  the  apostle  describes  the 
bondage  of  believers  to  righteousness,  in  the  very  words  with  which  he  describes  the  bon- 
dage of  the  ungodly  to  sin.  His  language  plainly  coaveys  tlie  idea  that  the  binding 
power  is  as  strong  in  one  case  as  in  the  other. 


204 

we  should  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God.'  7:  1 — 4.  We  observe  upon  tins— 
1.  The  figure  employed  by  the  apostle,  impUes  that  a  man  cannot  be  joined 
to  the  law  and  to  Christ  at  the  same  time.  2.  That  as  men,  in  the  first  place ^ 
are  joined  to  the  law /or  life^  they  can  only  be  released  from  their  relation  to 
it,  hy  death.  3.  That  bchevers  are  released  by  fellowship  with  the  death  of 
Christ.  For  an  explanation  of  the  clause  '  Ye  are  become  dead  to  the  law 
hy  the  body  of  Christ,^  we  refer  to  the  beginning  of  the  preceding  chapter. 
'  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were 
baptized  into  his  death  T  &c.  6:  3.  /is  the  death  of  Christ's  body  is  the 
death  of  those  who  are  baptized  (or  immersed^  in  him,  they,  and  they  only^ 
of  the  inhabitants  of  this  world,  are  released  from  the  law.  And  because  they 
are  also  dead  to  sin  by  their  immersion  in  Christ,  (see  6:  2,  &c.,)  they  are 
released  from  the  law  without  the  danger  of  licentiousness.  Taking  then,  the 
passage  which  has  been  so  much  stumbled  at — '  Ye  are  not  under  the  law, 
but  under  grace,'  (6:  14) — in  its  connection  with  what  goes  before  and  what 
follows  it,  (7:  1,)  we  see  it  amounts  to  this :  '  Ye  are  not  under  law,  but  are 
lawfully  divorced  from  it,  by  that  spiritual  baptism  into  Christ  which  has 
released  you  from  sin.'  Who  but  a  reprobate  can  pervert  this  doctrine  to 
purposes  of  wickedness  ? 

We  come  next  to  a  conclusive  illustration  of  the  fatal  effects  of  the  law, 
by  Paul's  own  experience.  Bearing  in  mind  the  prominent  points  of  his  doc- 
trine which  we  have  already  reviewed,  viz,  '  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of 
sin' — '  the  law  worketh  wrath' — '  the  law  entered  that  the  offence  might 
abound' — ''  ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace;' — justified  as  they 
are,  and  defended  from  perversion,  by  the  proof  that  they  do  not  ^make  void, 
but  establish  the  law,'  no  candid  inquirer  for  truth  can  possibly  mistake 
Paul's  meaning  in  the  famous  passage  which  closes  the  seventh  chapter. 
Without  wasting  words  to  prove  that  this  passage  describes  an  unregenerate 
state,  we  shall  notice  only  its  testimony  concerning  law.  That  testimony  may 
be  reduced  to  the  following  propositions  : — 1.  The  laiv  is  the  great  occasion  of 
sin.  2.  Yet  the  lata  is  holy,  just  ayid  good.  To  illustrate  the  former,  he 
gives  an  account  of  his  own  experience,  first  when  he  was  without  law,  and 
secondly  after  he  came  under  law.  His  story  in  brief,  is  this.  Before  he 
knew  the  law,  he  was  comparatively  guiltless  ;  but  as  soon  as  he  came  under 
law,  sin  began  to  manifest  its  power  within  him,  and  a  struggle  commenced 
between  his  conscience  and  his  carnal  propensities,  in  which,  the  proper  influ- 
ences of  the  law  were  constantly  defeated,  and  that  which  should  have  per- 
suaded him  to  obedience,  was  turned  into  an  occasion  of  transgression.  To 
establish  the  s^t'owcZ  proposition — and  so  guard  his  readers  against  the  impres- 
^on  wliich  they  might  otherwise  receive  from  his  illustration  of  the  first,  and 
from  many  things  which  we  have  noticed  in  the  former  part  of  the  epistle, 
viz.  that  he  attributed  evil  to  the  law — ^lie  carefully  explains  the  process  by 
wliich  the  law  aggravates  sin,  and  clearly]  shows,  1,  that  the  law,  instead  of 
participating  in  the  guilt  of  sinners,  exposes,  and  reproves  it ;  2,  that  sin  per- 
verts the  law  from  its  proper  design  into  a  stumbling-block,  and  by  thus 
making  good  an  occasion  of  evil,  magnifies  its  own  sinfulness,  without  casting 
any  blame  on  the  law  j  3,  that  in  this  very  process  of  perversion,  the  noblest 


Paul's  views  of  law.  205 

(tliougli  the  weakest)  part  of  his  nature  took  sides  with  the  law :  so  that  he 
actually  acknowledged  and  connnended  its  holiness,  while  he  was  converting 
it  into  an  occasion  of  sin.  We  must  refer  the  reader  to  the  whole  passage  it- 
self, for  a  verification  of  this  analysis.  / 

We  learn  from  all  the  evidence  now  before  us,  that  Paul  was  a  warm 
friend  of  the  law.  He  insists  that  it  is  holy,  just,  and  good,  vmdicates  it 
from  all  accusation,  and  shows  that  full  provision  is  made  in  the  gospel,  for 
the  perfect  fulfilment  of  its  claim.  Indeed  the  very  earnestness  with  which 
he  argues  for  its  abandonment,  as  a  means  of  producing  righteousness,  is 
the  best  proof  of  his  aifection  for  it.  Knowing  by  his  own  experience,  that 
the  law  is  too  weak  for  successful  conflict  with  sin,  and  knowing  also  that  an- 
other and  a  mightier  champion 'of  righteousness  is  in  the  field,  ready  to  take 
its  place,  and  able  to  win  its  battles,  how  could  he  testify  his  friendship  for 
it  other Avise  than  by  rescuing  it  from  the  officiousness  of  those,  its  misguided 
advocates,  who  would  honour  it  by  thrusting  it  into  a  needless,  unequal,  and 
self-destroying  war  ?  His  friendship  was  so  faithful  that  he  dared  to  succor  ^ 
the  law,  by  removing  it,  and  bringing  in  an  omnipotent  substitute. 

Every  parent  knows  that  an  attempt  to  control  the  will  of  a  child,  which, 
by  the  iyiefficieney  of  the  influences  employed,  proves  unsuccessful^  not  only 
.avails  nothing,  but  actually  feeds  and  strengthens  the  spirit  of  disobedience^ 
On  this  principle,  Paul  deprecates,  as  we  have  seen,  the  employment  of  the 
law,  as  a  means  of  producing  obedience  to  God.  His  objection  lies  not- 
against  the  moral  character  of  the  law,  but  against  its  inefficiency.  Having 
clearly  manifested  that  inefiiciency  in  the  Tth  chapter,  he  proceeds  in  the 
8th  to  contrast  with  it  the  efficiency  and  complete  success  of  the  substitute 
which  the  gospel  proposes.  '  What  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak 
through  the  flesh,  God,  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh, 
and  for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh  ;  that  the  righteousness  oe  the. 
LAW  might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  // 
spirit.'  8:  3,  4.  The  ohject  proposed  in  substituting  Christ  for  the  law,  as- 
hore distinctly  declared,  is  such  as  fully  redeems  Paul's  doctrine  from  the 
charge  of  antinomianism.  And  the  means  employed  will  be  condemned  only 
by  those  Avho  dissent  from  his  views  of  the  weaJg7iess  of  the  law.  If  his  phi- 
losophy on  this  subject  can  be  shown  to  be  false,  if  it  can  be  proved  that  the 
law  is  able  to  secure  the  righteousness  which  it  requires,  Paul  will  be  con- 
victed of  antinomianism — not  indeed  in  intent,  but  in  efiect ;  and  moreover, 
God  will  be  convicted  of  sending  his  Son  in  vain.  But  if  his  philosophy  be 
sound,  all  those  advocates  of  the  law  who  ignorantly  plead  for  its  employ- 
ment as  an  influence  to  produce  obedience — and  so  virtually  condemn  Paul, 
as  its  enemy — will  finally  be  convicted  themselves  of  the  most  fatal  antino- 
mianism, in  the  very  zeal  of  their  legahty. 

In  the  conclusion  of  the  9th  chapter  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  10th,  we 
find  a  striking  illustration  of  the  truth  of  Paul's  theory.  '  The  Gentiles, 
which  followed  7iot  after  righteousness,  hme  attained  to  righteousness,  even 
to  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith.  But  Israel,  which  followed  after  the 
law  of  righteousness,  hath  not  attained  to  the  law  of  righteousness.  Where- 
fore ?     Because  they  sought  it  not  by  faith  ^  but  as  it  were  by  the  works  of 


206  Paul's  views  of  law. 

the  law.  ....  I  bear  them  record,  that  they  have  a  zeal  of  God,  but  not 
according  to  knowledge.  For  they  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteousness, 
and  going  about  to  estabhsh  their  own  righteousness,  have  not  submitted 
themselves  to  the  righteousness  of  God.'  9:  31,  32,  10:  2,  3.  We  here 
perceive  thdui  facts  fully  bear  out  Paul  in  the  paradox  which  he  maintains  ; 
viz,,  that  cleaving  to  the  law,  defeats  the  law — and  forsaking  it  for  Chrisfs 
sake.,  fulfils  it.  The  Jews,  being  by  their  previous  education  a  nation  of 
legalists,  as  a  body  rejected  the  gospel,  because  it  set  aside  the  law  which 
they  adored.  Their  very  zeal  for  righteousness,  because  it  was  not  accor- 
ding to  knowledge,  made  Christ  ^  a  stumbling-stone  and  a  rock  of  offense ;' 
and  so  put  away  from  them  the  only  source  of  righteousness.  While  the 
Gentiles,  being  hindered  by  no  such  attachment  to  the  law,  readily  received 
Christ  and  by  him  attained  righteousness. 

The  next  and  last  passage  in  this  epistle  which  requires  to  be  noticed,  is 
well  worthy  to  stand  as  a  summary  of  Paul's  whole  doctrine.     'Christ  is 

THE  END  OF  THE  LAW  FOR  RIGHTEOUSNESS,  TO  EVERY  ONE  THAT  BELIEV- 

ETH.'  10:  4.  The  meaning  of  the  word  ^end^  in  this  passage,  is  clearly 
determined  by  our  previous  developments.  If  '  the  law  worketh  wrath,' 
Christ  must  be  its  termination,  before  righteousness  can  come  in.  If  the 
reader  will  observe  the  four  following  things,  he  will  have  no»  occasion  to 
stumble  at  this  construction.  1,  Paul  does  not  say  an  antinomian  theory  is 
the  end  of  the  law :  2,  h-e  does  not  say  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for 
lieetitiousness :  3,  he  does  not  say  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  to  every  hody  : 
but  4,  he  does  say,  '  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believeth.' 

Now  lest  any  one  should  say,  (according  to  the  popular  mode  of  evading 
the  reasoning  of  Paul  in  this  matter,)  that  the  whole  discourse  which  we  have 
reviewed,  refers  not  to  the  moral,  but  to  the  Jeivish  law,  it  may  be  well  to 
cast  a  rapid  glance  over  the  whole  ground  again.  The  first  passage  which 
we  specially  noticed — '  Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be 
justified  ;  for  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin,'  &c.,  (3:  20,) — is  the  con- 
clusion of  an  argument  which  refers  to  the  Gentiles  and  the  law  of  nature, 
as  well  as  to  the  Jews  and  the  law  specially  given  to  them.  Moreover,  the 
power  of  conviction  which  is  ascribed  to  the  law  in  the  last  clause,  deter- 
mines its  nature.  Paul  evidently  refers  to  any  and  all  law  which  operates 
on  the  conscience  ;  and  to  the  Jewish  laAv  specially,  only  because  that  law  is 
distinguished  from  others  by  the  degree,  and  not  the  nature,  of  its  operation. 
The  righteousness  of  God  is  '  ivithout  that  law^  by  w^iich  is  the  knmuledge 
of  si7i,  whether  it  be  Jewish  or  Gentile.  We  have  in  this  first  instance,  a 
clue  to  Paul's  meaning  in  his  whole  subsequent  argument.  Speaking  to 
them  that  knew  the  Jewish  law,  it  was  natural  that  he  should  make  that  law 
the  representative  of  all  others,  and  leave  the  general  application  of  his  reas- 
^  oning  to  the  good  sense  of  his  readers.  If  the  Jewish  law  'worketh  WTath' — 
causing  '  the  offense  to  abound,'  insomuch  that  the  promise  to  Abraham,  and 
the  salvation  of  the  gospel  were  necessarily  made  independent  of  it — a 
fortiori,  that  promise  and  that  salvation  must  be  independent  of  any  law 
whose  sanctions  arc  inferior  to  those  of  the  Jewish.      His  reasoning  in  the 


OF   LAW.  2§T 

Ith  chapter,  where  he  shows  how  and  why  the  law  worketh  wrath,  expressly 
refers  to  that  law  which  says,  '•Thou  shall  not  covet.'*  7:  7.  It  will  hardly 
be  pretended  that  this  is  exclusively  a  Jewish  law.-  The  precept  mentioned, 
certainly  stands  in  that  decalogue  which  is  generally  held  to  be  of  universal 
apphcation  ;  and  Paul's  illustration  of  the  effects  of  that  precept  on  himself, 
shows  that  m  his  view,  the  decalogue,  above  all  other  law,  '  worketh  wrath.' 
Moreover,  all  that  he  says  about  '  establishing  the  law,'  (3:  31,)  and 
'  fulfilling  the  righteousness  of  the  law,'  (8:  4,  &c.,)-  proves  that  he  had  in 
his  mind,  not  the  external  law  of  the  Jews,  but  that  spiritual  (see  7:  14) 
and  eternal  law  of  righteousness  which  applies  equally  to  all  moral  beings  : 
for  that  only  is  established  and  fulfilled  in  the  gospel..  Finally,  in  connection 
with  the  last  passage  noticed  in  our  review,  we  find  the  following  definition 
of  legal  righteousness,  which  fully  determines  the  nature  of  that  law  of  Avhich 
Christ  is  the  termination  : — '  Moses  describeth  the  righteousness  which  is  of 
the  law,  That  the  man  which  doeth  those  things  shall  live  by  them.'  10:  5, 
Whereas  the  righteousness  of  the  gospel,  as  the  apostle  proceeds  to  declare, 
calls  upon  men  simply  to  believe  and  confess.  Faith,  in  the  gospel,  stands 
contrasted  with  doing,  in  the  law.  Of  course  Christ  is  the  end  of  all  that 
sort  of  law,  whether  Jewish  or  Gentile,  which  sets  men  upon  doing  instead 
of  believing. 

Another  common  method  of  evading  the  conclusions  to  which  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  naturally  leads,  is  to  refer  all  Paul  says  about  the  inefficiency 
and  death-working  influence  of  the  law,  to  the  subject  oi  justification  merely, 
and  not  to  personal  righteousness.  Many  are  ready  to  agree  with  Paul,  that 
the  law  has  nothing  to  do  with  justification,  while  they  still  insist  upon  em- 
ploying it  as  an  influence  to  produce  obedience.  In  answer  to  this,  it  may 
be  observed,  that  Paul  no  where  makes  the  vast  distinction  between  justifica- 
tion and  sanctification,  which  is  so  prominent  in  many  systems  of  divinity^ 
He  refers  both  to  the  operation  of  the  same  spirit  of  life,  and  so  identifies 
them,  that  none  but  a  scholastic  imagination  can  tell  where,  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans,  his  discourse  on  justification  ends,  and  where  that  on  sanctifi- 
cation begins.  At  all  events,  his  doctrine  about  the  law  is  the  same,  without 
a  single  contrary  suggestion,  in  the  6th,  7th  and  8th  chapters — which  man- 
ifestly refer  to  sanctification — as  it  is  in  those  preceding  chapters  which  are 
supposed  to  refer  more  particularly  to  justification.  Indeed  he  lays  out  most 
of  his  strength  in  the  7th  chapter,  directly  to  prove  and  illustrate  the  de- 
structive influence  of  the  law  oil  personal  character  ;  and  in  the  8th  chapter 
he  expressly  declares  that  the  fulfilling  of  '  the  righteousness  of  the  lata 
IN  us,'  is  that  which  '  the  law  could  not  do,'*  and  that  for  which  God  sent 
his  Son. 

II.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  After  the  usual  address  and 
benediction,  the  apostle  commences  this  epistle  thus  :  '  I  marvel  that  ye  are 
80  soon  removed  from  him  that  called  you  into  the  grace  of  Christ,  unto  an- 
other gospel :  which  is  not  another  ;  but  there  be  some  that  trouble  you,  and 
would  pervert  the  gospel  of  Christ.  But  though  we,  or  an  angel  from 
heaven,  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we  have  preached 
y.nto  you,  let  him  be  accursed.    As  we  said  before,  so  say  I  now  again,  if 


208  Paul's  views  of  law. 

any  man  preacli  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye  have  received,  let 
him  be  accursed.'  This  is  truly  a  portentous  introduction.  We  naturally 
expect  the  disclosure  of  some  awful  departure  from  truth.  IModern  notions 
of  heresy  prompt  us  to  ask — '  Is  it  Universalism,  or  Unitarianism,  or  New 
Haven  divinity,  or  Perfectionism,  or  Antinomianism,  that  has  invaded  and 
desolated  the  Galatian  church,  and  thus  called  forth  the  thunders  of  apostolic 
indignation  V  But  the  views  that  have  already  been  suggested  in  this  ex- 
amination, are  fitted  to  check  all  such  surmises,  and  point  us  to  an  .  error 
more  radical,  practical,  plausible,  and  destructive,  than  any  that  are  men- 
tioned in  these  dftys.  In  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  Paul  exhibits  in  a  didac- 
tic form  the  system  of  theology  which  he  calls  his  gospel;  (Rom.  16:  25  ;) 
and  we  have  seen  that  gospel  summed  up  in  the  comprehensive  saying, 
^Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  helieveth.* 
The  heresy  which  most  naturally  arraj^s  itself  against  this  gospel,  and  when 
successful,  most  completely  subverts  it,  is  legality.  The  acknowledged 
goodness  of  the  law  furnishes  a  pretext,  and  natural  unbelief  the  disposition, 
to  reject  a  gospel  which  makes  an  end  of  the  law  as  a  guide  to  righteousness, 
and  demands  faith  in  an  invisible  spirit.  Accordingly  we  have  seen  all  but 
a  remnant  of  the  Jewish  nation,  rejecting  Christ  for  the  law's  sake  :  and  we 
might  anticipate  that  the  first  and  worst  heresy  which  would  break  out  among 
those  who  professed  to  receive  Christ,  would  be  legality — a  disposition  to  re- 
turn from  Christ  to  the  law.  Such,  we  shall  find,  w^as  actually  the  heresy 
which  drew  from  Paul  the  redoubled  anathema  with  which  the  epistle  before 
us  commences. 

After  certifying  the  Galatians  that  he  received  his  gospel  directly  from 
Christ,  and  instead  of  being  instructed  by  the  other  apostles,  had  communi- 
cated the  gospel  to  them — he  mentions  his  reproof  of  Peter  for  succumbing 
to  the  legality  of  certain  Jewish  behevers,  and  thence  takes  occasion  in  the 
conclusion  of  the  second  chapter  to  make  a  brief,  summary  statement  of  those 
great  principles  concerning  law  and  grace,  w^hich  are  more  largely  discussed 
in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans.  '  Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the 
works  of  the  law,  but  by  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  even  we  have  believed 
in  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  the  faith  of  Christ,  and  not 
by  the  works  of  the  law :  for  by  the  works  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  jus- 
tified. But  if,  while  we  seek  to  be  justified  by  Christ,  w^e  ourselves  also  are 
found  sinners,  is  therefore  Christ  the  minister  of  sin  ?  [i.  e.,  if  we  adopt  the 
previous  doctrine  as  a  mere  theory,  and  seek  to  be  justified  by  the  faith  of 
Christ — not  by  being  immersed  in  him,  and  so  putting  on  his  righteousness — 
but  by  an  imaginary  imputation  of  his  righteousness  to  us,  while  we  still  re- 
main ourselves  in  sin ;  or  if,  after  having  been  immersed  in  him,  we  return 
from  the  Spirit  to  the  law,  and  thus  again  become  sinners,  is  Christ  respon- 
sible ?]  God  forbid.  [Christ  is  responsible  only  for  those  who  have  lawfully 
abandoned  the  law,  by  entering  into  an  everlasting  spiritual  union  with  him- 
self.] For  if  I  build  again  the  things  which  I  destroyed,  I  make  myself 
a  transgressor.  [Any  one  who  intelli^gently  seeks  to  be  justified  by  Christ, 
first  destroys  his  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  and  thus  dying  to 
sin,  becomes  a  vessel  of  Christ's  righteousness.     If  one  who  professes  to 


r 


Paul's  views  of  law.  209 


have  done  this  is  afterwards  found  a  sinner,  it  is  proof  that  he  has  ceased  to 
be  a  vessel,  and  has  become  Ms  own  man  again — and  of  course  proof  that 
there  was  some  defect  in  his  initial  act  of  surrender.]  For  I  through  the 
law  am  dead  to  the  law,  that  I  might  live  unto  God.  [Such  is  the  legiti- 
mate position  of  one  who  seeks  to  be  justified  by  Christ ;  and  in  this  position 
sin  is  impossible.  A  man  must  separate  himself  from  God  and  revert  to  the 
law,  and  so  build  the  things  he  once  destroyed,  before  he  can  become  a 
sinner.]  I  am  crucified  with  Christ :  nevertheless  I  live :  yet  not  1,  hut 
Christ  liveth  in  me :  [Christ  is  not  a  sinner;]  and  the  life  which  I  now  live 
in  the  flesh,  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me  and  gave 
himself  for  me.  I  do  not  frustrate  the  grace  of  God :  for  if  righteousness 
come  hy  the  law^  then  Christ  is  dmd  in  vain."*  Gal.  2:  16 — 21.  We  have 
here  our  old  theory  that  the  law  is  the  great  occasion  of  sin,  and  that  death 
to  the  law  by  union  to  Christ,  is  the  only  way  of  salvation  from  sin^  For 
the  violation  of  these  principles  the  apostle  proceeds  to  rebuke  the  Galatians. 
'  0  foolish  Galatians,  who  hath  bewitched  you,  &c. — This  only  would  I  learn 
of  you,  Received  ye  the  Spirit  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing 
of  faith  ?  Are  ye  so  foolish  ?  having  begun  in  the  spirit,  are  ye  now  made 
perfect  by  the  flesh  ?  Have  ye  sufiered  so  many  things  in  vain?  if  it  be  yet  in 
vain.  He  therefore  that  ministereth  to  you  the  Spirit,  and  worketh  miracles 
among  you,  doeth  he  it  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith?* 
Gal.  3:  1 — 5.  The  apostle  'Kppeals  to  the  plain  fact  that  they  received 
the  Spirit  originally  without  any  reference  to  the  law,  and  that  the  minis- 
tration of  the  power  of  the  gospel  among  them  was  independent  of  the  law, 
as  proof  that  their  legality  was  heresy  and  apostasy.  He  then  shows  that  in 
like  manner  the  original  gifts  to  the  Jews  through  Abraham,  were  made  in- 
dependent of  the  law — 1,  by  the  language  of  the  covenant ;  2,  by  the  fact 
that  the  covenant  was  for  all  nations  ;  3,  by  the  condemning  nature  of  that 
law  ;  4,  by  the  testimony  of  the  law  itself  that  the  just  shall  live  by  faith  ; 
5,  by  the  fact  that  the  covenant  was  given  before  the  law.  Gal.  3:  6 — 18. 
'  Wherefore  then  serveth  the  law  T  [Here  is  the  grand  difficulty  of  his  doc- 
trine.] Ans.  'It  was  added  for  the  sake  of  transgressions,  till  the  seed 
should'  come,  to  whom  the  promise  was  made.'  19.  The  EngUsh  translators 
have  obscured  the  meaning  of  this  last  verse,  by  using  the  equivocal  expres- 
sion— 'because  of  transgressions,'  instead  of  the  more  literal  translation  of 
'  Charin  parabaseon^  which  we  have  given.  Perhaps  they  dared  not  let 
Paul  speak  for  himself,  for  fear  that  the  unlearned  and  unstable  might  stum- 
ble at  his  doctrine.  We  admit  the  original  might  bear  the  construction  they 
have  given  it,  if  other  considerations  required  it ;  but  it  is  evident  that  other 
considerations  require  the  literal  translation  which  we  have  given ;  1,  because 
Paul  has  before  proved,  repeatedly  and  abundantly,  that  the  only  efiect  of 
the  law  is  to  increase  transgression  ;  and  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  all- 
wise  God  instituted  it  for  any  other  purpose  than  that  which  it  is  actually 
fitted  to  eflect ;  2,  because  Paul  has  in  one  instance  at  least  before,  expressly 
declared,  that  Hhe  law  entered  that  the  offense  might  abound.^  Bom.  5:  20. 
Holding  as  w^e  know  he  did  that  Hhe  strength  of  sin  is  the  laiv,  (see  1  Cor. 
15:  bQ.^  what  folly,  what  self-contradiction  would  it  be  for  him  to  say  that 
26 


210  l^AUL*S  VIEWS  OF  tAW. 

the  law  was  added  to  prevent  or  diminish  sin !  His  doctrine  manifestly  is, 
that  God  having  sccured^the  inheritance  of  salvation  to  Abraham,  and  his 
seed,  by  hanging  it,  not  on  tlie  law,  nor  the  works  of  man,  but  on  his  own 
simple  promise — and  having  appointed  a  future  time  for  the  execution  of  the 
promise  by  the  revelation  of  Christ,  the  promised  seed — introduced  the  law, 
as  a  sort  of  parenthesis  in  the  transaction,  occupying  the  interval  between 
the  promise  and  its  execution,  not  for  the  superfluous  purpose  of  anticipating 
the  work  of  Christ,  m.  the  etsablishment  of  righteousness,  nor  yet  for  the 
suicidal  purpose  of  subverting  the  original  promise  to  Abraham,  by  estabhsh- 
ing  hopeless  transgression;  but  for  the  wise  and  necessary  purpose  of  in- 
creasing the  intensity  and  bitterness  of  sin,  for  a  limited  period,  that  he 
might  thus  awake  a  hungering  for  righteousness,  and  prepare  the  way  for  its 
revelation  at  the  appointed  time.  Observe  the  apostle  does  not  say  simply 
*  the  law  was  added  for  the  sake  of  transgressions  ;'  he  adds — Hill  the  seed 
should  come,  to  whom  the  promise  was  made.'  Again  ;  '  The  law  entered 
that  the  offense  might  abound.- — But  where  sin  abounded  grace  did  much 
more  abound ;'  i.  e.  by  the  subsequent  revelation  of  Christ.  The  time  of 
the  evil  wrought  by  the  law,  was  limited,  and  the  good  that  followed  it  was 
surpassing  and  without  end.  Moreover,  the  law  by  causing  the  offense  to 
abomid  for  a  season,  was  not  the  enemy,  but  the  servant  of  him  who  after- 
wards caused  the  offense  to  cease ;  for  Paul  says  in  a  passage  which  we  have 
already  noticed  in  this  epistle^ — '  I  THROUGH  the  law  am  dead  to  the  law, 
that  I  might  live  unto  God.'  Gal.  2:  19.  Turning  to  the  account  of  his  ex- 
perience in  the  7th  chapter  of  Romans,  we  see  the  truth  of  this  saying. 
Through  the  latv,  he  was  made  to  despair  of  righteousness  under  the  law, 
and  so  was  driven  to  Christ.  So  that  the  evil  effected  by  the  law,  is  self- 
limited,  and  subservient  to  the  righteousness  that  follows  it. 

The  case  may  be  stated  and  justified  thus.  Man  has  a  disease  which  God 
has  engaged  to  cure.  The  disease  is  such,  that  if  left  to  its  natural  course, 
it  will  slowly  consume  and  finally  destroy  life.  It  can  be  cured  by  being  first  ag- 
gravated and  brought  to  a  crisis,  and  then  skillfully  managed  with  restorative 
applications.  God  has  two  medicines.  One  of  them  is  violent  and  inflam- 
matory in  its  operation.  He  gives  this  first  to  increase  the  disease,  and 
drive  it  forward  to  the  desired  crisis.  The  other  is  mild  and  nourishing, 
but  useless  to  the  patient  in  the  premature  stage  of  his  disease.  He  gives 
this  at  the  point  where  the  operation  of  the  former  is  complete,  and  so  effects 
a  cure.  It  would  be  folly  and  cruelty  to  give  the  restorative  first ;  and  it 
would  be  equally  fooHsh  and  cruel  to  give  the  inflammatory  medicine  after 
the  cure  is  effected.  Giving  each  in  its  proper  time,  God  manifests  his 
wisdom  and  benevolence. 

That  we  have  not  misinterpreted  Paul  in  his  answer  to  the  question, 
'  Wherefore  then  serveth  the  law?'  is  further  evident  from  what  next  follows. 
Having  said  that '  the  law  was  added  for  the  sake  of  transgressions,'  this  ob- 
jection naturally  occurs  :  '  Is  the  law  then  against  the  promises  of  God  ?' 
for  it  would  seem  at  first  view,  that  anything  that  increases  sin  must  tend  to 
defeat  the  promise.  Paul  answers,  '  God  forbid ;  for  if  there  had  been  a 
law  given  that  could  have  given  life,  verily  righteousness  should  have  been 


p 


paul'3  views  op  law.  211 


by  the  law.'  3:  21.     God's  only  object  in  tlie  whole  matter,  was  to  execute 

the  covenant ;  and  if  he  could  have  done  it  by  the  law,  he  would  have  spared 
his  Son.  If  the  disease  could  have  been  cured  by  the  first  medicine,  it 
would  have  been  folly  in  the  physician  to  torment  himself  and  his  patient 
with  a  second. 

'  But  the  scripture  hath  concluded  all  under  sin,  that  the  promise  by  faith 
of  Jesus  Christ  might  be  given  to  them  that  beUeve.'  Ver.  22.  There  was  a 
necessity  that  an  outward  law  should  first  shut  all  men  up  in  the  prison  of  sin, 
before  there  could  be  such  a  demand  for  a  Savior  as  would  give  value  and 
efficacy  to  his  service.  We  find  a  parallel  and  perhaps  a  clearer  statement 
of  this  idea  in  Rom.  11:  32 — 'God  hath  concluded  them  all  in  unbelief,  that 
he  might  have  mercy  upon  all.'  Mercy  is  for  the  lost ;  and  as  the  mercy  of 
the  gospel  requires  to  be  desired  and  embraced  on  the  part  of  the  sinner  in 
order  to  become  available,  it  is  necessary  not  only  that  men  should  be  lost, 
but  also  that  they  should  be  sensible  of  the  fact.  The  law  effects  this  prepa- 
ration for  the  gospel — 1,  by  revealing,  and  2,  by  increasing  sin.  '  But  be- 
fore faith  came,  we  were  kept  under  the  law,  shut  up  unto  the  faith  which 
should  afterwards  be  revealed.'  The  law,  by  revealing  and  increasing  sin, 
leaves  no  way  of  escape  but  through  Christ ;  so  that  the  saints  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation  lived  only  by  the /wpe  of  future  grace.  The  law  con- 
stantly drove  them  from  itself  to  that  hope  ;  and  that  hope  jomed  them  to 
the  Lord.  They  had  not  the  perfect  faith  and  hfe  of  the  gospel ;  but  they 
had  a  faith  and  life  of  the  same  kind,  sufficient  for  a  refuge  from  hopeless 
condemnation.  Othermse  the  law  would  have  destroyed  them.  '  Wherefore 
the  law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  unto  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justi- 
fied by  faith.  But  after  that  faith  is  come,  we  are  no  longer  under  a  school- 
master.' Ver.  24,  25.  The  business  of  the  law  is  to  drive  us  to  Christ  j  and 
there  its  office  ceases. 

In  the  remainder  of  the  epistle,  Paul  amplifies  and  illustrates  in  several 
ways  the  foregoing  positions.  First  he  compares  the  state  of  the  Jews  undef 
the  law,  to  that  of  habes^  '  difiering  nothing  from  servants,'  and  declares  that 
the  object  of  the  gospel  was  to  release  them  from  the  dominion  of  'tutors  and 
governors,'  and  place  them  in  the  position  of  sotis.  Afterwards  he  presents 
the  same  great  idea,  in  an  allegorical  form,  comparing  the  subjects  of  the  law 
to  Ishmael,  the  son  of  a  bond-maid,  and  the  subjects  of  the  gospel  to  Isaac, 
the  son  of  a  free-woman.  The  moral  of  his  allegory  is,  that  the  law,  (viz. 
the  decalogue^  for  that  w^as  the  chief  message  from  Sinai,)  'gendereth  to  bon- 
dage,' and  the  gospel  to  liberty.  He  intersperses  his  arguments  with  most 
earnest  expostulations  with  the  Galatians,  for  their  legality,  and  concludes 
with  many  exhortations  like  the  following :  '  Stand  fast  in  the  liberty. — 
Brethren,  ye  have  been  called  unto  liberty,  only  use  not  liberty  for  an  occor 
sion  to  the  flesh. — Walk  in  the  Spirit. — If  ye  be  led  by.  the  Spirit,  ye  are 
not  under  the  law. — The  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,  peace,  &c. ;  against 
such  there  is  no  law.'' 

If  the  preceding  sketch  shall  help  the'reader  to  a  view  of  the  drift  and 
spirit  of  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  our  object  will  be  gained.  We  think  it 
is  sufficiently  manifest  that  legality  was  the  heresy  which  made  occasion  for 


212 

the  anathemas  and  invectives  with  which  it  abounds.  As  this  is  the  only  one 
of  Paul's  epistles  in  which  he  makes  it  his  maiii  object  to  expose  and  sup* 
press  doctrinal  error,  we  must  conclude  either  that  he  was  a  very  superficial 
theologian,  and  had  never  discovered  the  main  avenues  of  error,  or  that  le- 
gality is,  as  he  represents  it,  the  heresy  of  heresies. 

III.  1  Tim.  1:  5 — 11.  "  Now  the  end  of  the  commandment  is  charity, 
out  of  a  pure  heart,  and  of  a  good  conscience,  and  of  faith  unfeigned  :  from 
which  some  having  swerved,  have  turned  aside  unto  vain  jangling,  desiring  to 
be  teachers  of  the  law  ;  understanding  neither  what  they  say,  nor  whereof 
they  affirm.  But  we  know  that  the  law  is  good,  if  a  man  use  it  lawfully  ; 
knowing  this,  that  the  law  is  not  made  for  a  righteous  man,  but  for  the  law- 
less and  disobedient,  for  the  ungodly  and  for  sinners,  for  unholy  and  profane, 
for  murderers  of  fathers  and  murderers  of  mothers,  for  manslayers,  for  whore- 
mongers, for  them  that  defile  themselves  with  mankind,  for  men-stealers,  for 
liars,  for  perjured  persons,  and  if  there  be  any  other  thing  that  is  contrary 
to  sound  doctrine,  according  to  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed  God." 

This  passage  is  the  beginning  of  Paul's  charge  to  one  who  had  been  his 
pupil  in  the  gospel,  and  was  just  entering  upon  the  ministry.  The  reader 
cannot  fail  to  notice  that  it  perfectly  coincides  with  and  confirms  the  views 
presented  under  our  last  head.  The  first  and  chief  heresy  against  which 
Paul  thought  it  necessary  to  caution  Timothy,  was  not  Universalism,  or  Uni- 
tarianism,  or  New  Haven  divinity,  or  Perfectionism,  or  Antinomianism,  but 

LEGALITY. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  '  end''  in  the  first  verse,  is  clearly  determined  by 
the  considerations  which  were  presented  in  connection  with  Rom.  10:  4. 
(See  p.  206.)  As  '  Christ  is  the  termination  of  the  law /or  righteousness,^ 
so  'charity,  out  of  a  pure  heart,  and  of  a  good  conscience,  and  of  faith  un- 
feigned,' (which  is  but  an  analysis  of  righteousness,  and  of  Christ,)  is  the 
termination  of  the  law.*  The  main  idea  in  both  passages  is  that  presented 
in  Gal.  3:  25 — 'After  that  faith  is  come,  we  are  no  longer  under  a  school- 
master.' Indeed  we  need  not  go  beyond  this  passage  itself,  to  find  a  dem- 
onstration of  the  truth  of  the  interpretation  proposed.  After  declaring  that 
'  charity  &c.  is  the  end  of  the  commandment,'  Paul  proceeds  to  caution  Tim- 
othy against  those  who  '  desired  to  he  teachers  of  the  lazv.^  What  was  their 
error  ?  Plainly  that  of  desiring  to  teach  what  ought  not  to  be  taught,  because 
its  end  had  come.  This  very  plainly  appears  by  what  follows,  viz: — '  the  law 
is  not  made  for  a  righteous  man  ;'  which  is  as  much  as  to  say — righteous- 
ness is  the  termination  of  the  law.     This  amounts  to  the  very  thing  which  is 

*  We  observe  Prof.  Robinson  defines  the  word  translated  end  in  these  passages,  in  one 
case  as  we  Iiuve  done,  and  in  the  other,  according  to  the  more  popular  interpretation. 
On  Rom.  10:  4,  he  says,  Telos  is  *  one  who  puis  an  end  to  any  thing- — one  who  abolishes.* 
He  remnrks  however,  that  '  others  here  consider  tclos  as  signifying  oneicho  accomplishes 
or  completes  any  thing,'  &c.  On  I  Tim.  1:  5,  he  says,  telos  means  '  the  end,  i.  e.  the  abject, 
the  principal  point,  the  sum  of  any  thing/  We  take  the  liberty  to  difier  from  the  learned 
professor  in  the  last  case,  tor  the  very  reason  that  leads  us.  to  agree  with  him  in  the 
former.  Since  the  first  and  principal  meaning  of  tclos  is  termination.  We  are  bound  thus 
to  interpret  it,  unless  the  context  and  the  analogy  of  faith  require  a  different  interpreta- 
tion ;  whereas  we  find  the  context  and  the  analogy  of  faith  in  the  case  of  1  Tim.  1:  5,  as 
well  as  of  Rom.  10:  4,  unequivocally  demanding  the  primary  and  most  literal  significa-^ 
tion  of  the  word  in  question. 


Paul's  views  of  law.  213 

said  in  the  first  verse,  according  to  the  construction  which  we  have  given  it. 
Moreover,  nobody  can  reasonably  object  to  the  sentiment,  that  the  command- 
ment ends  where  ^  charity  out  of  a  pure  heart,  and  a  good  conscience,  and 
faith  unfeigned,'  begins ;  for  surely  the  claim  of  the  law  is  fully  satisfied  by 
these  elements  of  righteousness,  and  Paul's  declaration  simply  amounts  to 
this — the  commandment  ends  where  its  fulfilment  begins.  As  he  has  before 
proved  in  (Rom.  and  Gal.)  that  the  converse  of  this  declaration  is  true,  i.  e. 
wJdle  the  law  continues^  its  fulfilment  cannot  begin,  any  one  who  objects  will 
do  well  to  consider  the  alternative  which  the  case  presents.  Which  is  better, 
to  have  the  law  ivithout  righteousness,  or  righteousness  without  the  law  ?  The 
truth  is,  no  one  really  objects  to  the  sentiment  under  consideration.  The 
contention  of  those  who  take  upon  them  to  cudgel  antinomianism,  is  not  with 
Paul,  or  any  of  his  intelUgent  disciples,  but  with  ignorant  perverters  of  his 
doctrine,  and  probably  in  many  cases,  with  figments  of  their  own  imagination, 
mere  '  men  of  straw.'  The  idea  of  the  law's  coming  to  an  end,  is  frightful 
to  them  only  because  they  disjoin  it  from  that  which  Paul  constantly  connects 
with  it,  viz.,  consequent  righteousness.  Their  experience  has  never  given 
them  a  clear  and  strong  concepTion  of  the  power  of  grace,  and  they  naturally 
imagine  that  the  end  of  the  law  is  necessarily  the  end  of  all  godly  influence, 
and  of  all  righteousness.  Perhaps  these  imaginations  are  confirmed  by  the 
evil  practices  of  some  who  make  a  speculative  theory,  and  not  Christ,  the  end 
of  the  law,  so  passing  from  legality  to  licentiousness.  Thus  they  come  to 
such  a  pass  of  prejudice,  that  when  any  one  quotes  Paul's  saying,  'Ye  are 
not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace,'  they  hear  only  the  first  part  of  the  dec- 
laration, '  Ye  are  not  under  the  laiv^  and  forthwith  commence  an  outcry 
against  antinomianism,  licentiousness,  &c.  They  see  the  law,  and  have  some 
confidence  in  its  regulating  influence ;  but  they  see  not  the  Spirit  of  life, 
which  in  the  gospel  stands  at  the  end  of  the  law.  Of  course  to  them  the 
transition  from  law  to  grace,  seems  like  leaping  from  a  rock  into  a  void  abyss. 
We  can  assure  all  w^ho,  for  such  reasons,  shudder  at  the  very  mention  of  'the 
end  of  the  law,'  that  they  shudder  at  their  oavh  imaginations,  and  not  at  any 
doctrine  which  Paul  or  any  of  his  honest  followers  hold  forth.  The  transi- 
tion which  Paul  proposes  is  not  from  a  rock  to  nothing,  but  from  a  visible 
'  Slough  of  Despond,'  to  an  invisible  rock  of  strength  ;  and  he  truly  says  of 
those  who,  under  the  false  imagination  which  I  have  described,  '  desire  to  be 
teachers  of  the  law'  for  fear  that  the  gospel  will  lead  to  antinomian  licentious- 
ness, that  they  '  understand  not  ivhat  they  say,  neither  whereof  they  affi7'm.' 

'But  we  know  that  the  laio  is  good,  if  a  man  use  it  lawfully.''  Al! 
things  are  good  in  themselves,  but  evil  to  those  who  abuse  them ;  and  indeed 
their  goodness  is  the  measure  of  the  evil  they  produce  when  perverted.  The 
law,  considered  merely  as  a  standard  of  righteousness,  is  wholly  good.  It 
is  a  perfect  expression  of  the  character  and  will  of  a  perfect  God :  and  the 
establishment  of  the  righteousness  which  it  requires,  is  the  highest  object  of 
the  gospel  which  supersedes  it.  But  good  as  the  law  is  in  itself,  it  may  be 
used  unlawfully ;  and  then  like  violent  medicines,  it  works  mischief  in  pro- 
portion to  its  power.  Hence,  mere  zeal  for  the  honor  of  the  law^,  when  un- 
accompanied by  a  correct  knowledge  of  its  design  and  appropriate  effects. 


214  Paul's  views  op  law. 

» 

will  never  ^  magnify  the  law  and  make  it  honorable.'  Whoever  drags  it 
from  its  appointed  place,  and  crowds  it  upon  the  field  of  Christ's  conquests, 
through  ignorance  disgraces  that  which  he  seeks  to  honor. 

'The  law  is  not  made  for  a  righteous  man."*  Why?  Because  a  right- 
eous man  has  gone  over  to  the  party  that  gives  the  law,  and  of  course  is  no 
longer  under  it.  The  law  surely  is  not  made  for  God,  for  then  God  would 
be  found  commanding  and  threatening  himself.  Moreover,  the  very  idea 
that  a  law  is  given^  supposes  that  the  giver  has  in  himself  beforehand  the 
standard  of  righteousness  proposed  in  his  law.  If  then  a  righteous  man  is 
one  who  is  'joined  to  the  Lord^  and  with  him  '  is  one  spirit,''  he  has  become 
a  member  of  the  Idb^y-giving  instead  of  the  \im-oheying  party,  and  is  par- 
taker of  a  righteousness  which  was  not  formed  by  the  law,  but  was  its  ante- 
cedent and  its  source. 

They  greatly  err,  who  say  that  '  all  the  virtue  on  earth  or  in  heaven 
consists  in  obeying  the  law,  and  that  if  the  law  were  abolished  there  could 
be  no  such  thing  as  moral  character  of  any  kind.'  (See  Oberlin  Evangehst.) 
This  statement  should  be  inverted  thus :  '  All  moral  law  in  heaven  and  on 
earth,  is  a  transcript  of  antecedent  virtue ;  and  if  there  was  not  previous 
moral  character,  there  could  be  no  moral  law;'  for  law  is  the  expression  of  the 
will  of  a  law-giver;  and  it  is  self-evident  that  the  will  must  exist  before  its  expres- 
sion. God's  righteousness,  which  existed  before  a  law  was  made  or  a  subject 
of  law  created,  is  the  original  of  which  all  moral  law  is  the  copy ;  and  that 
righteousness,  independent  as  it  is  of  the  law,  is  the  only  righteousness  in 
heaven  or  on  earth.  The  gospel  reveals  no  other ;  and  the  law  works  not 
righteousness,  but  wrath.  So  that  not  only  the  converse  but  the  reverse  of 
the  above  statement  is  true — i.  e.,  There  is  no  virtue  on  earth  or  in  heaven^ 
that  consists  in ,  obeying  the  law.  Whoever  would  disprove  this  assertion, 
must  show  either  that  God's  virtue  is  dependent  on  the  law,  (and  of  course 
that  the  law  existed  before  God  became  virtuous,  and  emanated  not  from 
him,  but  from  some  higher  authority,)  or  that  men  have  some  other  righteous- 
ness than  God's.  The  error  of  the  Oberlin  legalists  doubtless  arises  from  the 
false  or  indefinite  meaning  which  they  attach  to  the  word,  law.  When  they 
say  '  the  law  is  the  only  standard  of  character,'  they  refer  merely  to  that 
which  may  be  called  the  indicative  element  of  the  law,  i.  e.  the  description 
which  it  contains  of  right  and  wrong,  which  standing  alone,  only  addresses 
the  understanding,  and  is  not  properly  called  law.  This  kind  of  law  may  be 
given  by  an  equal  to  an  equal ;  or  by  an  inferior  to  a  superior ;  or  by  a  man's 
understanding  to  his  own  heart.  But  law,  properly  so  called,  can  be  given 
only  by  a  superior  to  an  inferior.  It  is  the  imperative  element — that  which 
implies  superiority  and  authority  on  the  part  of  the  giver — that  which  addres- 
ses/ear in  the  subject  and  puts  constraint  upon  his  will,  that  constitutes  the 
distinctive  nature  of  law ;  and  this  element  has  no  essential  connection 
with  the  standard  of  right  and  wrong,  which  is  necessary  to  the  existence  of 
moral  character.  God  unquestionably  is  under  the  indicative  portion  of  the 
law ;  i.  e.  his  will  is  subject  to  his  understanding,  and  his  understanding  dis- 
cerns between  good  and  evil.  But  who  will  say  that  he  is  under  the  imper- 
ative f    He  has  no  superior,  and  he  cannot  command  himself.     Then  he  is 


Paul's  views  of  law.  215 

not  under  law.  In  his  case  at  least,  the  indicative  is  disjoined  from  the  im- 
perative ;  and  yet  he  has  a  perfect  standard  of  character,  and  a  perfect  right" 
eousness.  A  standard  of  character  then  may  exist  without  a  law;  and  it 
may  so  exist  in  man  as  well  as  in  God.  To  illustrate,  suppose  a  father  mere- 
ly instructs  his  son  in  the  principle  that  truth  is  good  and  falsehood  is  evil, 
without  uttering  a  command;  has  that  son  no  standard  of  morality  ?  Must 
Sound  doctrine  be  backed  by  orders  and  penalties,  before  it  becomes  a  stan-  |  ( 
dard  of  character  ?  Or  is  there  no  virtue,  as  the  legalists  say,  in  regarding  •  ' 
good  instruction,  unaccompanied  by  threats  ?  Universal  consciousness  and 
common  sense  testify  the  contrary  of  all  this.  All  virtue  lies,  not  in  subject- 
ing the  will  to  fear,  as  must  be  done  under  the  law,  but  in  subjecting  the  will 
to  the  understanding.  It  is  self-evident  that  God's  virtue  is  of  this  descrip- 
tion ;  and  if  man's  virtue  is  from  God,  or  is  homogeneous  with  God's  virtue, 
it  lies  in  subjecting  the  will  to  the  indicative  and  not  to  the  imperative  portion 
of  the  law ;  in  other  words,  it  lies  not  in  obedience  to  a  laiv,  but  to  a  doc- 
trine. Legalists,  in  confounding  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  law  with  the 
law  itself,  and  thence  deducing  the  dogma  that  the  law  is  essential  to  the  ex- 
istence of  virtue,  place  themselves  among  those  who,  Paul  says,'  understand  ^^ 
not  what  they  say,  nor  whereof  they  affirm.' 

Paul  evidently  makes  the  distinction  which  we  have  made  between  the  in- 
dicative and  the  imperative  elements  of  the  law,  in  the  passage  which  com- 
mences our  present  head.  '  The  end  of  the  commandment,^ . says  he,  'is 
charity,'  &c. ;  but  this  is  not  the  end  of  sound  doctrine  ;  for  he  proceeds, 
'  the  law  is  made  for  the  lawless,  &c.,  and  if  titer e  he  any  other  thing  that  is 
contrary  to  sound  doctrine,  according  to  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed 
God.^  The  gospel  then  has  the  indicative  portion  of  the  law,  so  far  as  the 
law  is  spiritual.  Whatsoever  is  contrary  to  the  command  of  the  law,  is  also 
contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel.  The  difference  between  the  law  and 
the  gospel,  is  not  in  respect  to  their  standards  of  right  and  wrong,  but  in  res- 
pect to  their  mode  of  influence  in  securing  or  seeking  conformity  to  those 
standards.  The  law  is  imperative  ;  the  gospel  is  persuasive.  The  law  ad- 
dresses fear  ;  the  gospel  addresses  love.  The  law  presents  its  orders  to  the 
eye  in  writing  ;  the  gospel  carries  its  persuasions  to  the  heart  by  spiritual 
power.     And  yet  they  have  a  standard  of  right  and  wrong  in  common. 

Bearing  in  mind  and  duly  considering  this  distinction,  we  can  easily  recon- 
cile Paul's  doctrines  with  his  practice,  which  otherwise  seem  inconsistent. 
While  he  labors  to  prove  that  the  law  aggravates  instead  of  healing  the  moral 
diseases  of  mankind,  and  repeatedly  declares  it  abohshed  by  the  advent 
of  the  gospel,  he  nevertheless  abounds  in  precepts  and  exhortations 
in  all  his  epistles.  A  blind  legalist  will  say  '  these  precepts  and  exhortations 
are  of  the  nature  of  law,  and  prove  that  Paul  held  no  such  doctrine  as  that 
the  law  is  abohshed.'  On  the  other  hand,  a  reckless  antinomian  will  say, 
*  Paul  preached  against  the  law,  but  after  all  he  was  under  the  law,  and  laid 
law  upon  others.'  One  of  these  is  as  far  from  the  truth  as  the  other.  Paul's 
precepts  and  exhortations  were  not  laws,  because  they  were  neither  given 
nor  received  in  the  imperative.  (We  speak  not  of  their  grammatical  forai, 
but  of  their  nature.)  They  were  enforced  not  by  authority  and  penalties, 
but  by  persuasions  aud  spiritual  power.    They  were  therefore  expressions  of 


216 

the  will  of  God  as  a  father,  and  not  as  a  law-giver.  Thus  joming  the  indic- 
ative to  the  persuasive  and  spiritual,  instead  of  the  imperative  and  penal, 
Paul  could  consistently  and  did  actually  transfer  to  the  gospel  the  whole  spir- 
itual code  contained  in  the  law.  Look  at  the  12th  chapter  of  Romans.  It 
is  an  unbroken  series  of  moral  precepts  ;  and  superficial  observers  may  call  it 
law.  But  any  one  who  has  pondered  the  grand  argument  of  that  same  epis- 
tle concerning  the  deadly  influence  of  the  law  and  its  abolishment  by  the  gos- 
pel,will  hesitate  before  he  adopts  an  opinion  that  imputes  to  Paul  the  most 
outrageous  inconsistency.  As  laws  commonly  suggest  the  nature  of  their 
authority  in  some  such  form  as  this,  'Be  it  further  enacted^  &c.,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  each  section,  we  naturally  turn  to  the  beginning  of  the  chapter 
imder  consideration  to  ascertain  the  nature  of  the  legislation  which  it  contains. 
And  there  we  find  a  formula  that  relieves  our  perplexity  and  saves  Paul's 
consistency.  '  I  BESEECH  you  therefore^  brethren^  BY  the  mercies  op 
God,  that  ye  present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice ^^  &c.  Here  is  a  form  of 
enactment  that  leaves  full  room  for  Paul's  antinomianism,  and  limits  not  the 
liberty  of  the  gospel.  Under  this  form  Paul  re-enacted  the  indicative  portion 
of  the  law,  as  fast  as  he  abolished  the  imperative.  See  Rom.  13:  8,  1  Cor. 
9:  8,  21,  14:  34,  Gal.  6:  2,  especially  Heb.  8:  10,  where  the  New  Cove- 
naut  is  represented  as  adopting  the  '  laws'  of  the  Old  Covenant,  but  not  its 
mode  of  enforcement ;  in  other  words,  as  connecting  the  indicative  part  of 
the  law  with  spiritual  power,  instead  of  command  and  penalty. 

IV.  1  CoE.  9:  20,  21.  "  Unto  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  I  might 
gain  the  Jews  ;  to  them  that  are  under  the  law,  as  under  the  law,  [not  be- 
ing myself  under  the  law,]  that  I  might  gain  them  that  are  under  the  law ; 
to  them  that  are  without  law  as  without  law,  (being  not  without  law  to  God 
but  under  the  law  [or  in  law]  to  Christ,)  that  I  might  gain  them  that  are 
without  law." 

In  order  to  a  right  understanding  of  this  passage,  it  is  important  to  notice 
the  two  criticisms  on  the  common  version,  which  we  have  suggested  in  brack- 
ets. 1.  According  to  the  best  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  (such  as 
Knapp's,)  there  is  a  parenthesis  in  the  first  verse,  (of  which  the  clause  in 
brackets  is  a  translation,)  qualifying  Paul's  statement  about  being  '  under 
the  law,'  corresponding .  to  the  qualifying  parenthesis  in  the  last  verse. — 
Paul  evidently  thought  it  as  necessary  to  repel  the  idea  of  legality  as  of  an- 
tinomianism, though  our  translators  seem  to  have  thought  otherwise,  in  leav- 
ing out  the  first  parenthesis.  2.  The  last  clause  of  the  parenthesis  in  the 
last  verse,  is  so  translated  in  the  common  version  as  to  give  the  impression 
that  the  original  of  the  expression,  '  under  the  laiv^  is  the  same  there  as  in 
the  first  verse.  Whereas,  in  the  first  verse  there  are  three  y^^y^upo  ton 
Tiomony  literally  translated  '  under  the  law  ;'  while  in  the  last  v<|rs^.  there  is 
but  one  one  word,  '  ennomos,^  compounded  of  ew,  signifying  m,  and:"*^io^2os, 
signifying  law  ;  hterally  translated  Hnlaw.^  It  is  obvious  that  there  is  a 
difference  between  being  under  law  and  being  in  law,  as  there  is  also  be- 
tween being  '  under  the  'law  to  Christ,'  and  being  '  in  law  [i.  e.  subject]  to 
Christ.'  The  unauthorised  introduction  of  the  definite  article,  makes  Paul 
declare  himself  under  the  same  law  that  he  had  professed  himself  free  from; 


217 

whereas  he  simply  declares  himself  loyal  to  Christ,  or  under  the  regulating 
influence  of  Christ.  The  parenthesis  may  be  freely  paraphrased  thus: 
Though  I  am  not  under  the  law  written  on  tables  of  stone,  or  with  ink,  as 
the  regulating  influence  of  my  life,  yet  I  am  not  without  a  regulating  influ- 
ence f.om  God.  His  Spirit  takes  the  place  of  the  law  ;  and  being  in  Christ, 
I  am  in  a  spiritual  law  of  righteousness,  though  I  am  not  under  the  written 
law.'  Regulation  of  life  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  means  by  which  it 
is  produced.  God  may  govern  by  laiv^  or  he  may  govern  by  his  Sjnrit. 
The  apostle  simply  means  to  refer  the  regulation  of  his  life  to  the  immediate 
influence  of  God  in  Christ,  that  no  one  may  suppose  him  to  be,  in  an  evil 
sense,  lawless,  because  he  says  he  is  '  without  law.' 

There  is  a  generic  sense  in  which  all  regulating  influence  is  properly  called 
law.  In  this  sense  we  may  speak  of  the  '  law  of  matter ;'  not  meaning  by 
that  expression,  that  matter  is  governed  by  imperative  verbal  enactments, 
but  that  it  is  governed  by  a  regulating  power  which  produces  the  same  or- 
derly effects  as  law  produces  in  the  moral  world.  In  a  similar  sense  we  may 
call  the  spiritual  influence  by  which  the  sons  of  God  are  governed,  a  law  ;  not 
because  it  is  verbal,  imperative,  or  penal ;  but  because  it  produces  those  or- 
derly effects  which  are  required  by  the  written  law  of  God.  Indeed  Paul 
frequently  uses  language  in  this  way.  Romans  8:  2,  3,  is  a  good  example. 
*  The  LAW  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,  hath  made  me  free  from  the 
law  of  sin  and  death.  For  what  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  w^eak 
through  the  flesh,  God  sending  his  own  Son,  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh, 
condemned  sin  in  the  flesh,  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfiU- 
*ed  in  us,'&c.  Here  are  three  distinct  laws  :  1,  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life; 
2,  the  law  of  sin  and  death ;  3,  the  written  law.  Now  no  man  will  say  that 
the  second  law  is  a  verbal  enactment.  '  The  law  of  sin  and  death'  is  not  a 
command  operating  2fpon  men,  but  a  spiritual  principle  working  in  them — a 
'  law  in  their  members.'  See  Rom.  7:  23.  But  the  law  of  '  the  Spirit  of  life' 
is  the  exact  counterpart  of  this  principle.  One  is  the  antagonist  of  the  other. 
The  first  law  then,  like  the  second,  is  a  spiritual  power,  working  in  men's 
members,'  and  as  such  only  is  competent  to  produce  that  righteousness 
which  the  verbal  law  can  only  require.  Paul  was  '  in  the  law  of  the  Spirit 
of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,'  but  not  under  either  the  law  of  commandments  or 
the  law  of  sin  and  death. 
27 


ay 


^28,    ANTI-LEGALITY  NOT  ANTINOMIANISM.. 

When  we  say  '  we  are  not  under  law,'  we  do  not  mean  that  we  are  not 
tinder  government.  God  does  not  cease  to  reiepi  over  man  by  the  change 
from  Judaism  to  Christianity.  He  is  '  king  of  saints'  in  heaven.  '  His  throne 
is  forever  and  ever.'  But  government  may  be  administered  in  various  ways* 
Law  is  not  the  only  means  by  which  a  king  may  seek  and  secure  obedience 
to  his  will.  Even  earthly  governments,  in  many  cases,  rely  on  education 
more  than  on  law.  Our  position  is,  that  in  the  Christian  dispensation,  God 
reigns  not  by  law,  but  by  other  and  far  more  effectual  influences,  viz.,  by 
grace  and  truth. 

Neither  do  we  mean,  in  saying  that '  we  arc  not  under  law,'  that  we  are 
released  from  fulfilling  the  righteousness  of  the  law.  Perfect  love  to  God 
and  man  is  the  only  standard  of  holiness,  under  the  Christian,  as  well  as  the 
Jewish  dispensation — the  great  end  for  which  God  administers  his  everlasting 
government.  But  law  is  not  the  only  influence  that  can  be  used  to  secure 
that  end.  A  king  may  certainly  induce  his  subjects  to  love  himself  and  each 
other,  by  personal  persuasion,  by  the  influence  of  the  press,  by  general  edu- 
cation, as  well  as  by  the  exhibition  of  authority  and  penalty.  The  question  at 
issue  between  us  and  the  legalists,  relates  not  to  the  standard  of  holiness,  the 
ultimate  object  of  God's  government- — but  to  the  measures  which  God  chooses 
to  employ  to  effect  that  object.  It  is  not  a  moral  but  a  prudential  question. 
We  may  suppose  God  to  have  presented  it  to  his  own  mind  thus  :  It  is  right 
that  men  should  love  ;  they  can  never  be  admitted  to  my  presence  till  they 
do :  now  shall  I  drive  them  into  love  by  a  threatening  law^,  or  shall  I  draw 
them  into  it  by  exhibiting  to  them  my  own  love,  giving  them  grace  and  truth  V 
We  believe  the  latter  poHcy  characterizes  the  Christian,  as  the  former  did 
the  Jewish  dispensation.  We  look  upon  God  in  Christ,  not  as  a  law-giver, 
but  as  a  Father,  governing  his  children,  not  by  formal  statutes,  but  by  the 
power  of  his  spirit,  his  word,  and  his  example.  This  is  what  we  mean  when 
we  say  '  we  are  not  under  law.' 

*  The  law  was  given  by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ,' 
Pid  grace  and  truth  come  only  to  help  the  law,  or  to  take  its  place  ?  Was 
Jesus  Christ  sent  only  as  an  auxiliary  to  Moses, 'or  as  his  substitute  ?  We 
answer  in  the  words  of  Paul — '  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  ImvJ  When  God 
commenced  his  government  by  grace  and  truth,  he  abolished  the  statutes  of 
Moses.  '  But  did  he  abolish  the  onoral  law  ?'  Yes.  Paul  expressly  speaks 
of  the  law  '  written  on  tables  of  stone,'  as  '  done  away.'  2  Cor.  3:  11.  We 
find  no  sufficient  authority  in  scripture  for  the  separation  which  is  commonly 
made  between  the  moral  and  ceremonial  law.  The  decalogue  certainly  con- 
tains one  command  which  in  its  nature  is  ceremonial,  viz.  that  relating  to  the 
Sabbath ;  and  the  whole  code  of  Moses  is  an  intermixture  of  natural  with  ar- 
tificial laws.  Paul  never  attempted  to  sunder  them  as  modern  theologians 
have  done,  but  called  them  all  '  the  law,'  and  declared  them  abolished  in 
Christ.    And  indeed  the  very  nature  of  the  new  government,  instituted  at 


ANTI-LEQALITY   NOT  ANTINOMIANISM.  219 

tne  coming  of  Christ,  as  we  have  before  defined  it,  required  the  abolishment 
of  all  previous  law. 

But  while  we  say  this,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  abolishment  of  the  ' 
Mosaic  code  is  not  an  abolishment  of  the  nature  of  God  and  man,  in  which  the 
necessity  of  the  righteousness  required  by  that  code  is  grounded.  It  is  not  the 
abolishment  of  the  will  of  God  that  men  should  love  himself  and  each  other,  but 
only  of  a  particular  legal  form  of  expressing  and  enforcing  that  will.  To  illus- 
trate :  Suppose  the  Legislature  of  Vermont  to  be  annihilated  by  a  sudden  rev- 
olution, and  its  whole  code  of  laws  to  be  thus  abolished.  Would  that  be  an  abol- 
ishment of  all  the  moral  truth  contained  in  that  code?  Would  it  leave  the  people 
of  Vermont  at  liberty  to  steal  and  murder  with  impunity,  and  with  a  good 
conscience?  The  nature  of  things  remaining  the  same,  the  nature  and  necessity 
of  virtuous  conduct  would  remain  the  same,  though  the  authority  of  the  local  ^ 
legislature,  and  the  specific  penalties  of  their  code,  should  be  removed.  So 
the  abolishment  of  the  whole  Mosaic  institute,  (which,  as  compared  with  the 
eternal  foundations  of  moral  truth,  is  but  a  local  legislature,)  affects  not  the 
value  and  necessity  of  love  to  God  and  man ;  while  it  enables  God  to  ap- 
proach men  as  a  father,  instead  of  a  law-giver,  and  thus  by  grace  and  truth, 
to  put  the  righteousness  of  the  law  in  their  hearts. 

But  Christ  says,  '  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the 
prophets  :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy  but  to  fulfill :  for  verily  I  say  unto  you, 
till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from 
the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled.'  How  is  this  consistent  with  the  truth  that 
*  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  ?'  The  difficulty  in  the  case  bears  as  heavily 
on  the  common  doctrine,  that  '  the  ceremonial  law  only  was  abolished  by  the 
coming  of  Christ,'  as  on  the  doctrine  we  have  presented  ;  for  if  Christ  abol- 
ished the  ceremonial  law,  he  destroyed  in  some  sense  a  '  tittle '  at  least  of 
the  law.  If  it  is  answered,  that  Christ  established  and  fulfilled  the  spirit, 
though  he  abolished  the  letter  of  the  ceremonial  law,  the  self-same  answer  is 
good  in  respect  to  the  moral  law;  he  established  and  fulfilled  its  spirit, 
though  he  abolished  its  letter.  We  may  take  a  view  of  the  whole  matter  by 
an  illustration.  Suppose  a  family,  in  the  absence  of  its  head  is  subjected  to 
an  imperative  code  of  ivritten  regulations,  some  of  them  founded  in  the  im- 
mutable nature  of  things,  and  some  of  them  merely  temporary  and  circum- 
stantial. The  father  at  length  returns  to  his  place  in  the  household.  At  the 
outset  of  his  personal  administration,  he  addresses  the  family  thus  :  '  Think 
not  that  I  am  come  to  set  aside  the  principles  which  have  hitherto  directed 
your  conduct ;  my  object  is  to  carry  them  into  full  execution  ;  and  I  shall 
do  this,  not  by  means  of  the  formal  statutes  which  have  heretofore  been  your 
rules,  but  by  my  own  personal  influence  and  example.  I  now  abolish  the 
written  code — the  whole  of  it, — and  call  upon  you  to  look  to  me  for  direc- 
tion.' In  such  a  case,  it  might  be  said,  in  one  sense,  that  the  law  of  the 
household  was  established,  and  in  another,  that  it  was  abolished.  But  it 
would  certainly  be  foolishness  to  divide  the  written  code,  and  say  a  part  of 
it  was  established  and  a  part  of  it  abohshed.  It  is  true  that  in  the  ncAV  per- 
sonal government,  the  distinction  between  that  which  was  necessary  and  that 
which  was  only  circumstantial  in  the  old  code  might  appear.     Essential  moral 


220  ANTI-LEGALITY  NOT  AXTINOMIANISM. 

principle  might  be  insisted  upon  in  the  exhortations,  persuasions,  and  eX' 
ample  of  the  father,  while  mere  formal  regulations  might  be  neglected. — ' 
Even  so  Christ  and  his  apostles  transferred  the  vital  elements  of  the  Mosaic 
law  to  the  discipline  of  the  gospel,  while  they  left  the  ceremonial  part  un- 
der the  sentence  of  abrogation. 

'  Wherefore  then  serveth  the  law  V  In  answer  to  this  question,  we  will 
notice,  first,  the  purpose  which  the  law  served  while  it  was  in  force  as  God's 
instrument  of  government ;  and  secondly,  its  use  in  the  present  dispensation 
as  a  witness  of  truth.  1.  '  Before  faith  came,  we  were  kept  under  the  law, 
shut  up  unto  the  faith  that  should  afterward  be  revealed.'  The  law  was  an 
enclosure,  which,  while  it  by  no  means  purified  its  subjects,  yet  kept  them 
within  the  reach  of  God's  influences,  till  the  purifying  power  of  the  gospel 
could  be  brought  in.  A  shepherd  proposing  to  wash  his  flock,  first  shuts  them 
up  in  a  fold,  to  bring  them  within  his  reach.  The  use  of  the  fold  is  not  to 
wash  the  sheep,  but  to  keep  them  within  necessary  bounds,  till  the  shepherd 
can  take  them  and  wash  them  himself.  2.  Though  the  righteousness  of  God 
revealed  in  the  gospel  is  '  without  the  law,'  yet  it  is  '  witnessed  by  the  law 
and  the  prophets.'  Rom.  3:  21.  The  Mosaic  code,  though  abohshed  as  an 
instrument  of  government,  yet  stands  on  record  as  a  glorious  developement 
of  truth.  While  we  cannot  give  it  the  place  of  Christ,  as  our  sanctifier  and 
judge,  we  may  still  interrogate  it  as  a  witness :  for  though  we  are  not  under 
law,  we  are  under  gi^ace  and  t7'uth  ;  and  the  truth  contained  in  the  record  of 
the  law,  is  a  part,  and  a  very  important  part,  of  the  instrumentality  of  the 
gospel.  Indeed  the  information  conveyed  by  the  law,  concerning  the  holi- 
ness of  God,  the  standard  of  character  necessary  to  man's  acceptance  with 
him,  and  the  wrath  which  awaits  ungodluiess,  is  the  very  platform  on  which 
the  gospel  is  erected. 

Having  disposed  of  the  law,  we  come  now  to  inquire  more  particularly,, 
Wliat  are  G-od^s  instruments  of  goveryimenfit  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  f 
And  first  of  all,  we  name  the  poiver  of  the  cross  of  Christ.  In  that,  God 
set  man  a  perfect  example  of  love.  That  example  hfted  up  like  the  serpent 
in  the  wilderness,  in  the  sight  of  sinners,  is  a  moral  engine  far  mightier  than 
the  laAV. 

Next  in  importance,  is  the  Holy  Ghost.  By  this  power  the  cross  is  spir- 
itually revealed  to  believers,  and  its  virtue  infused  into  their  hearts,  so  that 
they  receive  it  not  as  a  mere  outward  example,  but  as  an  assimilating  energy, 
by  which  they  are  crucified  with  Christ  to  the  world,  become  dead  to  sin, 
and  fully  subject,  as  Christ  was,  to  the  perfect  will  of  God.  While  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost  thus  plants  the  root  of  all  righteousness  in  the  heart,  it  also  leads 
the  understanding  into  all  truth,  sanctifies  the  susceptibihties  and  directs  the 
outward  conduct. 

A  third  influence  by  which  God  governs  men  in  his  kingdom  of  grace,  is 
Ms  outward  word.  One  vehicle  of  that  word  is  the  scriptures.  But  the 
principal  external  agency  employed  in  the  primitive  church  was  that  of  apos- 
tles, prophets  and  teachers.  The  chief  office-work  of  these  also  was  to  bear 
witness  of  the  cross  of  Christ.  They  were  auxiharies  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in 
setting  forth  before  the  eyes  of  men  and  applying  to  their  hearts,  the  great 
example  of  God's  perfect  love. 


ANTI-LEGALITY  NOT  ANTINOMIANISM.  221 

But  it  is  evident  that  they  were  not  mere  witnessess..  The  whole  record 
of  the  New  Testament  exhibits  them  as  commissioned  to  reprove,  correct, 
exhort,  and  watch  over  the  clmrch.  There  is  reason  to  beheve  that  this  ele- 
ment of  the  government  of  the  gospel  has  been  extensively  confounded  with 
the  law.  Many  have  seemed  to  suppose  that  the  doctrine  that  'we  are  not 
under  law,'  necessarily  implies  that  we  are  not  subjects  of  exhortation  and 
correction.  The  falsehood  of  this  notion  might  be  assumed,  from  the  simple 
fact,  that  Paul,  from  whom  in  fact  we  get  all  our  anti-legal  views,  was  '  instant 
in  season  and  out  of  season,  reproving,  rebuking,  exliorting,  with  all  long-suf- 
fering.' It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he  misunderstood  and  practically  con- 
tradicted his  own  doctrine  ;  that  on  the  one  hand  he  taught  believers  that 
they  were  not  under  law,  and  on  the  other  imposed  law  upon  them.  He 
evidently  saw  a  clear  distinction  between  the  government  of  a  father,  and 
that  of  a  law-giver.  Exhortations  and  even  commands,  addressed  by  spiritual 
men  to  spiritual  men,  were  certainly  not  regarded  as  savoring  of  legahty  in 
the  primitive  church.  And  in  truth,  a  little  reflection  will  discover  that  the 
exhortations  of  Paul  differed  from  law  in  many  particulars.  In  the  first  place, 
they  were  not  like  law,  dead-letter  rules,  but  like  the  words  of  Christ,  they  ■ 
were  spirit  and  life.  Moreover,  they  did  not  depend  on  a  penalty  for  their 
execution,  but  carried  with  them  the  power  of  their  own  fulfilment.  As  they 
were  living  words,  they  found  a  living  echo  in  the  hearts  of  those  to  whom 
they  were  addressed  ;  and  obedience  was  not  a  matter  of  conscientious  con- 
straint, but  of  spiritual  impulse.  Love,  instead  of  fear,  presided  over  the 
transaction.  So  in  their  effects,  Paul's  spiritual  commands  proved  themselves 
to  be  widely  different  from  laws.  We  know  that  '  the  law  worketh  wrath  ;' 
but  Paul's  letter  of  reproof  to  the  Corinthian  church,  in  respect  to  the  case 
of  fornication,  wrought  a  thorough  reformation.  See  2  Cor.  T:  8 — 11. 

We  admit  that  this  branch  of  the  gospel  government,  is  in  its  nature  tem- 
porary, adapted  only  to  the  incipient  stages  of  the  spiritual  dispensation.  It 
is  manifest  that  the  kingdom  of  God  as  administered  in  heaven,  has  no  occa- 
sion for  the  employment  of  exhortation  and  reproof ;  and  in  the  progress  of 
the  church  on  earth,  when  '  we  shall  all  come  into  the  unity  of  the  faith, 
and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  mito  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure 
of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ,'  (a  state  which  we  believe  is  attainable 
and  will  be  attained  in  this  world,)  this  semi-legal  part  at  least,  of  the  office  of 
apostles,  prophets  and  teachers,  will  come  to  an  end.  But  few  will  venture  to 
affirm  that  that  time  has  already  come  to  us.  Experience  has  shown  that  the 
same  necessity  of  discipline,  exhortation  and  reproof,  exists  now,  as  existed  in 
the  primitive  chvirch  ;  and  we  may  reasonably  expect  that  God,  as  a  wise  fa- 
ther,  looking  at  the  necessities,  not  of  individuals,  but  of  his  whole  household, 
will  in  due  time  provide  the  necessary  agencies  of  temporary  external  dis- 
cipline. 

In  order  to  complete  our  view  of  the  means  of  government  in  the  kingdom 
of  Christ,  a  fourth  element  of  discipline  should  be  noticed,  viz.,  God's  provi- 
dential aj^pUcation  of  suffering.  It  is  evident  that  '  fiery  trials,'  both  of  a 
temporal  and  spiritual  nature,  were  among  the  chief  agencies  of  the  educa- 
tion of  the  primitive  saints;  insomuch  that  Paul  said, '  If  ye  endure  chasten- 


222  TWO   KINDS   OF  ANTINOMIANISM. 

ing,  God  dealeth  mth  you  as  with  sons :  for  what  son  is  he  whom  the  father 
chasteneth  not  ?  But  if  ye  be  without  chastisement,  whereof  all  are  partakers, 
then  are  ye  bastards  and  not  sons.'  This  kind  of  discipline,  however,  like 
the  preceding,  belongs  to  the  government  of  the  transition  period,  not  to  the 
final  kingdom  of  God.  The  two  may  be  regarded  as  of  kindred  nature,  and 
of  course  appropriate  during  the  same  period  ;  that  is,  so  long  as  the  church 
as  a  body  endures  providential  chastening  from  the  Lord,  it  may  safely  be 
regarded  as  needing  verbal  exhortation  and  reproof. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  abohshment  of  the  Mosaic  code  is  not  the  abolishment 
of  all  regulating  influence.  Though  God  reigns  not  by  Iojw  in  the  kingdom 
of  his  Son,  he  has  not  therefore  surrendered  his  supremacy,  and  abandoned 
his  purpose  of  subjecting  all  things  to  his  will.  We  are  sure  that  the  blood 
of  the  cross,  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  testimony  and  reproofs  of  the 
gospel,  and  the  chastenings  of  God's  providence,  are  elements  of  government 
incomparably^  more  vigorous  and  effectual  than  any  possible  application  of  legal 
influence.     We  feel  safe  under  the  sceptre  of  grace  and  truth. 


§29.    TWO  KINDS  OF  ANTINOMIANISM. 

The  word  antinomian  is  compounded  of  two  Greek  words,  viz.,  anti^  mean- 
ing against^  and  nomos,  meaning  law.  An  antinomian  is  an  anti-laio  man. 
Now  the  law  of  God  may  be  viewed  in  two  aspects,  viz  : — first,  as  his  will 
embodied  in  words  ;  and  secondly,  as  his  will  embodied  in  a  spirit.  The 
'law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus'  is  the  law  of  God,  as  truly  as  is  the 
law  of  Moses.  When  God  says,  in  the  new  covenant, — '  I  will  put  my  laws 
in  their  hearts  and  write  them  in  their  minds' — he  does  not  mean  that  he  will 
put  a  verbal  code  of  laws  in  men's  hearts  and  minds,  but  that  he  will  put  a 
spirit  within  them  which  will  secure  the  righteousness  defined  in  his  verbal 
code.  We  may  say,  then,  there  is  a  letter-law  and  there  is  a  spirit-law. 
The  letter-law  was  the  glory  of  Judaism,  but  the  spirit-law  is  the  glory  of  the 
gospel.  Both  are  expressions  of  the  character  and  will  of  God  ;  but  the  lat- 
ter is  as  much  more  effectual  and  valuable  than  the  former,  as  spiritual  pow- 
er is  stronger  than  words.  There  are  therefore  two  kinds  of  antinomianism. 
A  man  who  discards  or  lightly  esteems  the  law  '  written  and  engraven  on 
stones,'  is  an  antinomian  in  one  sense  ; — he  is  a^ams^  the  letter-law.  And 
the  man  who  discards  or  lightly  esteems  the  '  law  of  the  spirit  of  fife'  written 
on  the  heart,  is  an  antinomian  in  another  sense  ; — he  is  against  the  spirit-law. 
Which  of  these  kinds  of  antinomianism  is  the  worst .? 

A  man  who  reverences  the  will  of  God  as  embodied  in  his  Spirit,  mny 
turn  away  from  the  letter-law,  without  any  sacrifice  of  loyalty.  Nay,  if  he 
sees  that  the  letter-law  only  causes  the  offense  to  abound,  and  that  his  actual 
fulfilment  of  the  will  of  God  depends  on  his  turning  to  the  spirit-law,  loyalty 


THE   SECOND   BIRTH.  22E 

requires  him  to  renounce  the  former  for  the  sake  of  the  latter.  Paul  was  an 
antinomian  in  this  sense.  In  his  view,  the  law  '  written  and  engraven  on 
stones'  had  no  glory  in  comparison  with  the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life. 

But  what  shall  we  say  of  those  who  are  jealous  for  the  permanent  author- 
ity of  the  letter-law,  and  are  ever  ready  to  cry  down  Paul's  kind  of  antino- 
mianism,  while  they  lightly  esteem  and  practically  reject  the  '  law  of  the  spirit 
of  life'?  There  are  many  antinomians  of  this  sort — men  who  are  exceed- 
ingly indignant  at  any  supposed  attempt  to  'lower  the  standard  of  the 
law,'  while  they  disclaim  all  pretence  of  actual  conformity  to  its  de- 
mands,— law-extollers,  and  at  the  same  time  avowed  law-breakers. — 
These  may  be  called  friends  of  the  law  of  God  in  the  abstract,  and  en- 
emies m  the  concrete.  The  law  '  written  and  engraven  on  stones' 
is  their  idol ;  but  the  law  written  on  the  heart  by  the  Spirit  of  the  liv- 
ing God,  i.  e.  actual  holiness,  (which  is  Perfectionism,)  is  their  abomination. 
They  are  vigilant  guardians  of  the  abstract  standard  of  holiness,  (which  is 
in  fact  no  standard  to  them,  since  they  do  not  profess  or  expect  to  live  by 
it,)  but  incontinently  lax  in  relation  to  the  practical  standard  of  Christ's  ho- 
liness embodied  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  professed  by  the  primitive  saints. 
They  are  ready  to  rise  in  arms  against  any  profane  meddling  with  the  stat- 
utes of  the  decalogue  ;  but  scruple  not  at  all  to  lay  violent  hands  on  such 
gospel  manifestos  as  these — '  He  that  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin  ;' 
'  He  that  sinneth  hath  not  seen  him,  neither  known  him.'  The  standard  of 
God's  requirements  they  extol  and  magnify;  but  the  standard  of  gospel  expe- 
rience answering  to  those  requirements,  they  level  down  to  their  own  carnal- 
ity, and  that  of  their  favorite  sinful  saints.  It  is  as  if  a  merchant  should  be 
rehgiously  solicitious  that  his  yard-stick  should  be  of  the  full  length,  but  free 
and  easy  as  to  cheating  his  customers  of  a  hand-breadth  in  the  actual  meas- 
urement of  every  yard  of  cloth.  We  call  this  the  worst  kind  of  antino- 
mianism. 


§  30.    THE  SECOND  BIRTH. 

The  object  of  this  article  is  to  show  by  an  examination  of  Scripture,  that 
none  except  Christ  wei^e  horn  of  Qody  previous  to  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

In  the  first  place,  let  the  reader  take  his  concordance  and  look  at  the  ref- 
erences under  all  the  principal  phrases  which  designate  the  second  birth — 
such  as,  '•horn  of  Grod^  'horn  againj  '•children  of  God^  '-sons  of  God^  &c. 
He  will  find  that  this  sort  of  language  is  confined  almost  exclusively  to  the 
New  Testament.  8ons  of  God  are  spoken  of  in  a  few  instances  in  the  Old 
Testament,  as  in  Gen.  6:  2,  Job  1:  6,  2:  1,  38:  7  ;  but  it  is  evident  that 
in  these  instances  the  expression  refers  to  angels.  In  Psalm  82:  6,  magis- 
trates are  spoken  of  as  '  children  of  the  Most  High  ;'  but  simply  with  refer- 
ence to  their  ofiice,  not  to  their  character,  as  appears  by  the  preceding  con- 
text.    God  calls  himself  the  lather  of  Israel,  (Mai.  1:  6,)  but  only  in  a 


224  THE  SECOND   BIRTH.   ^^^.  ff)    ->,p^.  ^..-^^M'^'- 

"^  sense  similar  to  that  in  which  he  is  the  Father  of  all  his  creatures,  viz.,  as  a 
benefactor.  He  speaks  of  the  Jews  as  his  children^  (Ezek.  16:  21,)  not  as 
intimating  that  they  were  horn  again,  but  that  they  owed  their  being  and 
blessings  to  him.  There  are  also,  in  the  Psalms  and  prophets,  predictions 
relating  to  the  second  birth — such  as  those  concerning  '  the  new  heart,'  '  the 
resurrection,'  Hhe  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth,'  &c.  From  these  a  wise 
man,  even  under  the  Jewish  economy,  might  have  learned  that  men  would 
be  '  born  again'  at  some  future  time,  i.  e.  when  the  promised  reign  of  heaven 
should  begin ;  so  that  Jesus  justly  reproved  the  ignorance  of  Nicodemus. 

r>v^      John  3:  10.     But  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  second  birth,  in  the  peculiar 

^         sense  which  that  expression  has  under  the  economy  of  the   new  covenant, 

^^^       was  ever  professed,  preached,  or  alluded  to,  otherwise  than  by  prediction,  till 

■^        Christ  came  into  the  world. 

>s,  The  great  idea  of  a  conjunction  of  the  divine  with  human  nature — which 

is  the  true  idea  of  the  second  birth — evidently  took  its  rise,  so  far  as  its  de- 
velopment in  the  Bible  is  concerned,  from  the  peculiar  conception  of  Jesus 
Christ.     The  angel  said  to  Mary — '  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee, 

^  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  ;  therefore  that  holy  thing 
which  shall  he  horn  of  thee,  shall  he  called  the  Son  of  God.'  Luke  1:  36. 
Here  for  the  first  time  a  human  being  took  the  name  of  a  Son  of  God. — 
Jesus,  not  merely  as  the  Everlasting  Word,  but  as  a  man,  was  the  '  first- 
born among  many  brethren.'  And  it  is  evident  that  he  was  called  the  Son 
of  God  in  a  higher  than  figurative  sense,  and  for  a  stronger  reason  than  be- 
cause he  was  a  righteous  man.  The  fatJier-part  of  his  coynpound natu7'e  was 
literally  the  life  of  Grod;  and  for  this  reason  he  was  called  tho  Son  of  God. 

'^  In  this  we  have  the  original  Bible  idea  of  the  sonship — a  definition  of  the 
divine  birth  ;  and  we  must  apply  this  definition  to  Christ's  brethren  as  well 

M'  as  to  himself.  We  say  then,  that  none  were  born  of  God,  till  the  life  of 
God  took  the  place  of  ihQ  father-part  of  the  natural  life  ;  and  there  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  this  took  place  until  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when 
the  '  Holy  Ghost  came  upon  the  church,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  over- 
shadowed it.'  Without  denying  that  men  had  received  a  measure  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  were  servants  of  God,  in  previous  ages,  we  still  affirm  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  the  first  who  had  the  divine  nature  ;  and  that  he  did  not  enter 
upon  his  office  as  the  second  Adam,  and  commence  the  work  of  communica- 
ting his  divine  nature,  until  he  had  ascended  up  on  high,  and  sent  forth  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

This  general  view  of  the  subject  will  be  confirmed,  if  we  consider  that  the 

^       Christian  church  is  the  hody  of  Christ,  (Eph.  1:  23,)  and  that  this  body  is 

K.        formed  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  1  Cor.  12:  13.     Christ  is  called 

the  '  only  begotten^  Son  of  God.  John  1:  18.      If  then  God  has   but  one 

Son,  all  others  are  sons  only  by  being  members  of  him.     But  the  formation 

of  his  spiritual  body  did  not  begin  till  he  arose  from  the  dead,  and  bestowed 

on  believers  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     Therefore  behevers  did  not  be- 

fc.       gin  to  be  members  of  him,  i.  e.  sons  of  God,  till  after  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

I,  We  will  now  proceed  to  examine  the  more  direct  testimony  which  we  have 

in  Scripture,  on  the  point  in  question,  under  several  propositions. 

^  i,    - 


THE  SECOND  BIRTH.  225 


I.  The  second  birth  is  described  as  the  effect  of  the  faith  that  came  into 
the  world  by  Jesus  Christ.  'As  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name,* 
John  1:  12.  If  it  is  said  that  the  saints  '  received'  Christ  and  '  behoved  on 
his  name'  before  he  came  into  the  world,  and  so  received  power  to  become 
the  sons  of  God :  in  reply  we  cite  a  parallel  passage,  which  clearly  deter- 
mines when  the  faith  that  is  the  fomidation  of  the  sonship  came  :— Gal.  3: 
23,  &c.  'Before  faith  came  [i.  e.  during  the  ages  before  the  coming  of  Christ, 
see  the  previous  context]  we  were  kept  under  the  law,  shut  up  [or  kept  in 
ward]  unto  the  faith  which  shoidd  aftenvards  be  revealed.  Wherefore  the 
law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  unto  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified 
by  faith.  But  after  that  faith  is  come,  we  are  no  longer  under  a  schoolmas- 
ter :  for  ye  are  all  the  children  of  Grod  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus. ^  It  is  here 
plainly  implied  that  while  they  were  under  the  law,  they  w^ere  not  the  chiil- 
dren  of  God  ;  and  it  is  expKcitly  stated  that  they  became  children  of  God  by 
faith  which  was  not  in  the  world  before  the  coming  of  Christ. 

II.  The  second  birth  is  described  as  the  effect  of  faith  in  the  resurrec- 
tion OF  Christ.  '  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
which  according  to  his  abundant  mercy  hath  begotten  us  again  unto  a  \_liv' 
ing^  hope  by  the  resurrectio7i  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead.  1  Peter  1:  3. 
The  sons  of  God  are  begotten  by  the  word  of  the  gospel.  1  Peter  1:  23 — 25. 
What  is  the  gospel  ?  Paul  answers — the  death,  and  especially  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ.  1  Cor.  15:  1,  &c.  'Reinember,^  says  he  to  Timothy,  Hhat 
Jesus  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  according  to  my  gospel.''  2  Tim.  2:  8. 
*  If  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  beheve  in 
thine  heart  that  G-od  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.' 
Rom.  10:  9.  The  reader  may  discover  the  reason  for  the  efficiency  of  faith 
in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  in  causing  the  new  birth,  by  reflecting  on  the 
following  texts.  (1.)  '  Whatsoever  is  bom  of  God  overcometh  the  world.' 
1  John  5:  4.  (2.)  '  Who  is  he  that  overcometh  the  world,  but  he  that 
beheveth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  V  1  John  5:  5.  (3.)  '  Christ  was 
declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  by  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead.''  Rom.  1:  4.  Christ's  resurrection  was  the  proof  of  his  sonship,  and 
faith  in  that  proof  was  the  power  of  the  second  birth.  The  second  birth, 
then,  did  not  commence  till  after  Christ's  resurrection.* 

*  It  should  be  observed  that  in  respect  to  his  natural  body,  Jesus  Christ  himself  was 
not  born  of  God,  till  after  his  resurrection.  The  vwther-part  of  his  nature  previous  to 
that  change  was  the  fallen  nature  of  Adam.  The  father-part  only  was  divine.  Hence 
Paul  applies  Ps.  2:  7, — 'Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee,'  to  Christ's  reS' 
urrection  ;  so  that  in  an  important  sense  Christ  himself  was  '  born  again.'  when  he  rose 
from  the  dead.  In  this  sense,  none  of  the  saints  of  the  primitive  church,  were  born  oi 
God  until  the  second  Coming".  We  have  a  complete  definition  of  the  sonship,  as  pertain- 
ing- to  the  whole  man,  in  Luke  20:  35,  36. — '  They  which  shall  be  accounted  worthy  to 
obtain  that  world,  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in 
marriage  :  neither  can  they  die  any  more  :  for  they  are  equal  unto  the  angels  ;  and  are 
the  children  of  God,  being  the  children  of  the  resurrection.'  This  was  ihe  '  adoption' 
for  which  Paul  was  waiting.  Rom.  8;  23.  See  also  Phil. 3:  11.  The  second  birth,  in  its 
most  extensive  sense  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  resurrection  of  soul  and  body. 
When  this  is  attained,  the  child  is  ushered  into  the  world  where  his  father  and  mother 
dwell.  See  Gal.  4:  26. 

28 


>     /    .13       ^ 


226  THE  SECOND  BIRTH. 

III.  The  second  Urih  is  described  as  the  effect  of  that  power  of  the  Molt/ 
Ghost,  which  ivas  given  after  Chrises  death  and  resurrection.  John  says,  (7: 
89,)  'The  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given,  because  that  Jesus  iv  as  not  yet  glori- 
fied.'' But  the  Holy  Ghost  in  some  form  of  power  had  been  given  in  all  ages 
before.  What  then  was  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  was  not  given 
till  Jesus  was  glorified?  We  answer,  Hhe power  of  his  resurrection^  was  not 
given,  and  could  not  be  given  till  he  had  died  and  risen  again.  And  it  is 
the  'power  of  Christ's  resurrection'  that  fulfills  in  behevers  that  word, 
'  Out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  hving  water' — that '  works  in  them  that 
believe,'  and  '  quickens  them  with  him,'  (see  Eph.  1:  19,) — that '  saves 
from  sin.'  See  Rom.  6:  1,  &c.  This  power — the  quickening  and  uniting  el- 
ement of  Christ's  spiritual  body,  the  church —  was  given  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, and  was  called  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Then  Christ's 
body  began  to  be  formed,  and  then  his  members  began  to  receive  the  son- 
ship  in  him.  Accordingly,  when  Paul  says,  as  before  quoted,  '  Ye  are  all 
tJie  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,^  he  adds  this  reason :  '  for 
as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ;^  (Gal. 
3:  27  ;)  i.  e.,  '  Ye  are  the  children  of  God  by  putting  on  Christ,  who  is  the 
only  begotten,  and  ye  put  on  Christ  by  being  baptized  into  his  body  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.'  See  1  Cor.  12:  13.  Hence,  the  Spirit  which  vfas  given  to 
the  primitive  church  is  called  '  the  Spirit  of  adoption,^  (uiothesias — sonship.) 
Rom.  8:  15.  It  is  spoken  of  in  Gal.  4:  6,  as  being  given  after  Christ  '  was 
made  under  the  law,'  and  is  clearly  distinguished  from  any  power  of  the 
Spirit  which  was  given  under  the  Jewish  dispensation.  '  When  the  fullness 
of  the  time  was  come,''  God  sent  forth  his  Son  first,  and  then  the  S^p)irit  of 
his  Son  into  believers'  hearts.  '  The  Comforter,'  '  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,'  and  '  the  Spirit  of  sonship'  are  only  difierent  names  of  the  same  pe- 
culiar bestowment  of  the  Spirit  which  followed  the  death  and  resun-ection  of 
Christ.  See  especially  1  Peter.  1:  10 — 12. 

IV.  The  second  birth  is  described  as  a  state  of  complete  salvation  from 
mi,  which  state  no  man  ever  attained  before  the  day  of  Pentecost.  '  Who- 
soever is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin  ;  for  his  seed  remaincth  in  him : 
and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  born  of  God.  In  this  the  children  of  God 
are  manifest,  and  the  children  of  the  devil.'  1  John  3:  9, 10.  '  Whatsoever 
is  bom  of  God  overcometh  the  world.'  5:  4.  '  We  know  that  whosoever  is 
born  of  God  sinneth  Jiot ;  but  he  that  is  begotten  of  God  keepeth  himself, 
and  that  wicked  one  toucheth  him  not.'  5:  18.  These  texts  are  commonly 
regarded  as  exaggerated  and  unguarded  statements  Avhich  need  to  be  quali- 
fied. The  argument  against  them  is  this ; — '  The  saints  of  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation, the  disciples  of  Christ  while  he  was  personally  with  them,  many 
behevers  in  the  primitive  church  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  all  Chris- 
tians in  later  ages,  certainly  were  not  free  from  sin ;  therefore  it  is  not  liter- 
ally true  that  he  that  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin.'  It  will  be  seen 
that  this  argument  takes  for  granted  what  is  no  where  stated  in  Scripture, 
and  what  our  whole  previous  discussion  contradicts,  viz.,  that  men  were  born 
of  God  before  the  day  of  Pentecost.  It  also  takes  for  granted,  that  no  higher 
attaiiiments  were  set  before  the  primitive  church  than  had  been  made  in  pre- 


THE  SECOND   BIRTH.  22T 

Whereas  we  know  that  the  primitive  church  lived  in  Hhe  fulness 
of  time,'  when  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  and  the  spirit  of  adoption,  and 
brought  behevers  up  from  the  state  of  servants  into  that  of  sons.  This  ar- 
gument moreover  proceeds  in  the  Avrong  direction ;  it  makes  the  characters 
of  nien  the  rule  of  judging  the  word  of  God,  instead  of  making  the  word  of 
God  the  rule  of  judging  the  characters  of  men.  The  true  argument  is  this : 
*  He  that  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin';  therefore  all  the  saints  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  and  all  in  later  ages,  except  a  part  of  the  primitive 
church,  were  not  born  of  God.'  Let  the  judgment  cut  where  it  will,  the 
'seed  of  God '  must  not  be  disgraced.  He  that4l  born  of  God,  has  the  life 
of  God  in  the  place  oi' the  father-jpart  of  his  natural  life,  and  Jesus  Christ  is 
his  own  brother.  He  has  in  the  essence  of  his  life,  the  same  security  from  sin 
that  Christ  has.  The  blood  royal  of  heaven  is  in  his  veins ;  and  that  blood 
never  was  and  never  will  be  disgraced  by  sin. 

The  great  objection  to  these  views  is,  that  they  seem  to  make  void  nearly 
all  that  has  been  called  religion  in  the  Avorld  from  the  beginning,  '  Except  a 
man  be  born  again,  he  cminot  see  the  Idngdom  of  G-od  f  'therefore,'  says 
the  objector,  '  according  to  your  theory,  Abraham  and  David,  with  all  the 
worthies  of  ancient  and  modern  ages,  could  not  enter  heaven.'  This  objection 
will  be  much  diminished  by  a  consideration  of  the  natural  meaning  of  the 
word  hirtJi.  It  seems  to  be  generally  imagined,  that  the  second  birth  is  the 
hegmning  of  the  process  of  spiritual  gestation.  Whereas,  the  natural  birth 
is  the  e7id  of  the  process  of  natural  gestation ;  and  there  is  no  reason  why  the 
spiritual  should  not  follow  the  order  of  the  natural.  The  proper  idea  of  the 
second  birth  is,  that  it  is  the  end  of  the  primary  process  of  spiritual  growth  ; 
the  concluding  attainment  of  those  who  seek  after  God.  With  this  idea,  we 
may  admit  that  the  Jewish  saints,  and  others  of  like  experience,  though  they 
had  not  received  the  spirit  of  adoption,  and  therefore  were  not  born  of  God, 
yet  were  embryo  candidates  for  the  second  birth.  Indeed  many  of  them 
were  more  than  candidates  ;  they  were  ^heirs  ;'  (see  Gal.  4:  1 ;)  i.  e.  they 
had  the  sure  promise  of  the  future  sonship ;  they  were  already  sons  in  the 
mind  of  God,  though  they  '  diifered  nothing  from  servants'  in  their  own  ex- 
perience. At  the  conclusion  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  '  when  the  fulness 
of  the  time  was  come,'  God  sent  forth  his  Son  and  Spirit ;  and  all  the  spirits 
ual  embryos  of  preceding  ages,  as  well  as  those  in  this  world,  received  the 
sonship.  This  view  alone  accords  with  the  fact  that  Christ  was  the  '  first- 
born.'    See  Heb.  11:  39,  40  ;  1  Peter  1:  12,  &c. 

Regeneration  was  the  harvest  of  the  Jewish  dispensation ;  and  it  is  the 
harvest  of  individual  religious  experience.  '  To  as  many  as  received  him 
gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God.'  The  receiving  him  was  the  sow- 
ing of  the  seed ;  and  the  becoming  sons  of  God  was  a  subsequent  harvest. 
Even  in  the  primitive  church  little  appears  to  have  been  said  distinctly  of  the 
second  birth  until  near  the  period  of  the  Second  Coming.  John,  writing  in 
'the  last  hour,'  (see  1  Epis.  2:  18,)  speaks  more  plainly  and  fully  of  the 
character  and  state  of  the  sons  of  God  than  any  other  writer  in  the  New 
Testament. 
It  is  plainly  discoverable  in  the  writings  of  Paul  that  there  were  in  the 


228  THE   SECOND   BIRTH. 

primitive  church  two  classes  of  bchevers.  One  of  them  (which  may.be  called 
the  highest  class)  he  distinguishes  as  '  spiritual ;'  (see  1  Cor.  2:  15  ;  Gal. 
6:  1;)  as  'perfect;'  see  1  Cor.  2:  6.  Phil.  3:  15.  &c.  The  other  he  calls 
'carnal,'  and  'babes.'  See  1  Cor.  3:1,  Heb.  5:  13.  This  lowest  class 
coincides  with  the  embryo  class  of  the  Jewish  dispensation.  See  Gal.  4:  1. 
&c.  The  highest  class  only  are  properly  called  the  sons  of  God.  There  is 
reason  to  believe  that  this  class  was  not  developed  until  a  considerable 
period  after  the  day  of  Pentecost :  Paul  appears  to  have  first  apprehended  and 
preached  the  'power  of  Christ's  resurrection.'  The  two  classes  were  blended 
more  or  less.  But  in  thei^Tie  when  John  wrote  his  epistle,  they  had  become 
clearly  distinct.  AVhen  '  the  darkness  was  past,  and  the  true  Hght  shone,' 
the  sons  of  God  were  manifested. 

The  views  that  have  been  presented  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  primitive 
church  differed  essentially  from  any  church  that  has  existed  either  before  or 
since.  The  mark  of  its  distinction  may  be  stated  thus — It  had  Perfection 
at  its  core.  While  Jesus  Christ  was  on  earth,  the  church  that  gathered  around 
him,  certainly  had  a  perfect  centre,  however  imperfect  it  might  have  been  in 
its  external  parts.  So  the  church  that  was  subsequently  formed  under  the 
administration  of  Peter  and  Paul,  as  it  is  described  in  John's  epistle,  certainly 
had  for  its  nucleus  a  class  of  men  who  were  free  from  sin — '  sons  of  God  with- 
out rebuke.'  This  perfect  nucleus  was  the  ruling  power  of  the  whole  church, 
the  moral  engine  at  the  centre,  which  was  constantly  drawing  into  itself  and 
conforming  to  its  own  nature,  the  '  ra^v  material'  of  imperfect  spirituality  that 
gathered  around  it.  The  previous  Jewish  church  had  for  its  nucleus  only  a 
class  of  imperfect  spiritualists  ;  and  its  '  raw  material'  was  a  class  of  formal- 
ists who  had  no  spiritual  hfe  whatever.  When  Christ  came,  Hhe  hght  of  the 
moon  became  as  the  light  of  the  sun,  and  the  light  of  the  sun  sevenfold,  as 
the  light  of  seven  days ;'  in  other  words,  the  lowest  class  in  the  church  be- 
came what  the  highest  w^as  before,  and  the  highest  class  became  sons  of  God. 
See  Zech.  12:  8.  The  peculiar  constitution  of  the  church  continued  only 
long  enough  to  become  a  model.  At  the  Second  Coming  the  sons  of  God 
were  taken  away,  and  the  '  imperfect  saints'  who  were  left  became  the  Fath- 
ers of  a  second  Jewish  church  among  the  Gentiles,  which  continues  to  this 
day.  Whenever  the  harvest  of  the  Gentiles  comes,  we  may  look  for  another 
church  formed  on  the  primitive  model,  having  sons  of  God  at  its  core.  The 
mistake  of  the  churches  is,  in  alloAving  only  one  class  of  believers,  and  that 
the  lowest.  A  similar  mistake  has  existed  among  Perfectionists  in  allowing 
also  only  one  class,  and  that  the  highest.  The  church  that  Avill  save  the  world, 
must  make  room  for  both  classes,  giving  the  predominance  to  them  that  have 
ceased  from  sin. 


I 


§  31.    THE  TWOFOLD  NATURE  OF  THE  SECOND  BIRTH. 

*  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  spirit  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kmgdom  of  God.'  John  3:  5. 

In  the  original  of  this  passage,  there  is  nothing  connected  with  the  word 
translated  '  the  Spirit,'  which  should  give  it  a  specific  meaning,  and  entitle 
it  to  the  definite  article.  Literally  translated,  the  passage  would  stand  thus: 
*  Except  a  man  be  born  of  ivater  and  spirit  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God.'  And  as  the  Greek  word  pneuma  primarily  means  breath,  air, 
or  wind,  (being  used  in  this  latter  sense  in  the  subsequent  context  of  this 
very  passage,  ver.  8,)  and  is  applied  to  spiritual  existences  only  by  meta- 
phor, it  is  evident  that  Christ's  intention  was,  not  to  designate  directly  '  the 
Spirit,'  but  an  element  naturally  belonging  to  the  same  category  with  water, 
viz.,  air  ;  so  that  the  most  literal  translation  possible  would  be  this  : — '  Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  of  ivater  arid  air  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God.'  It  is  impossible,  we  know,  that  any  English  translation  should  pre- 
sent the  precise  aspect  of  the  original  in  this  case,  or  should  make  the  tran- 
sition from  the  literal,  to  the  figurative  meaning  of  pneuma,  and  from  the 
figurative,  back  to  the  literal,  which  occurs  several  times  in  John  3:  5 — 9, 
so  easy  and  natural  as  it  is  in  the  Greek  ;  because  we  have  no  single  word 
that  is  ordinarily  used  to  signify  both  air  and  spirit.  Yet  we  think  our 
translators  have  taken  an  unwarrantable  liberty  in  rendering  pneuma,  in 
some  cases  wi^id,  and  in  others  spirit,  in  the  same  passage.  They  make  a 
discourse,  which  in  the  original  is  well  connected,  to  the  English  reader  very 
incoherent ;  especially  in  the  eighth  verse.  That  the  whole  passage  may  be 
seen  in  its  original  form,  we  will  translate  it,  using  the  word  pneuma  itself, 
instead  of  any  version  of  it,  w^herever  it  occurs.  '  Except  a  man  be  born  of 
water  and  pneuma,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  That  which 
is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  \h.Q  pneuma  i^ pneuma. 
Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee.  Ye  must  be  bom  again.  The  pneuma 
bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not 
tell  whence  it  cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth :  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of 
\h&  pneuma.'*  Since  the  words  water  and  p)neuma,  in  the -first  part  of  the 
passage,  are  both  of  them,  in  their  literal  sense,  names  of  material  elements, 
and  it  appears  from  what  follows  that  one  of  them  is  used  in  a  symbohcal 
way  to  denote  a  spiritual  element,  it  is  safe  to  conclude  that  both  of  them 
are  so  used :  i.  e.,  since  pneuma  stands  not  merely  for  literal  air,  but  as  a 
symbol  of  spiritual  air,  we  conclude  that  ivater  stands  not  merely  for  literal 
water,  but  as  a  symbol  of  spiritual  water.  Christ's  meaning  then  is — '  Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  of  two  elements,  which  are  to  the  soul  as  water  and  air 
to  the  body,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.'  Water  is  the  el- 
ement of  external  purification,  and  air  is  the  element  of  internal  life.  So 
that,  laying  aside  the  symbols,  we  may  paraphrase  the  passage  thus : — 'Ex- 
cept a  man  he  horn  of  an  outwardjcleansing,  and  an  inwardj[wickening,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  cj^  (xodJ' 


230  TWOFOLD   NATURE   OF  THE   SECOND  BIRTH. 

There  is  another  line  of  argument  by  which  we  may  reach  the  same  con- 
elusion  concerning  the  meaning  of  John  3:  5.  At  the  close  of  Christ's 
discourse  on  the  second  birth,  Nicodemus  asked  him,  '  How  can  these  things 
be  V  He  answered,  ^  Art  thou  a  master  [i.  e.  teacher]  in  Israel,  and 
knowest  not  these  things  V  In  this  answer  he  plainly  intimated  that  the 
doctrine  he  had  delivered  was  taught  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  ought  to 
havfe  been  knoAvn  to  a  professed  teacher  of  the  scriptures.  We  turn  then  to 
the  Old  Testament  to  find  the  original,  of  which  Christ's  teaching  was  a  copy. 
In  Ezekiel  36:  25 — 27,  it  is  written,  '  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean :  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your  idols, 
will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will 
I  put  within  you  ;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  fiesh,  and 
I  will  give  you  an  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you, 
and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes;  and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments,  and 
do  them.'  Here  we  discover,  first,  a  prediction  of  the  second  birth :  for  as 
the  heart  is  the  seat  of  fife,  the  taking  away  of  one  heart,  and  giving  of  an- 
other, must  be  death  and  birth  ;  and,  secondly,  a  twofold  agency,  described 
by  the  very  terms  that  Christ  uses  in  John  3:  5,  viz.,  water  and  spirit,  '  I 
will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you  ;  [but  this  is  not  all ;]  a  new  heart  also 
ynW  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  withm  you.'  That  word  'also^ 
plainly  implies  that  the  '  new  heart  and  new  spirit'  is  something  over  and 
above  the  '  sprinkling  of  clean  water.'  A  glance  at  this  prediction  shows 
that  it  was  the  source  of  Christ's  doctrine  of  the  second  birth,  the  very  pas- 
sage from  which  he  derived  the  terms  water  and  spirit, — and  well  he  might 
wonder  at  Nicodemus'  ignorance.  But  what  light  does  this  passage  throw 
on  the  meaning  of  the  word  water  as  Christ  used  it  ?  What  Jcind  of  water 
is  here  made  one  of  the  agents  of  regeneration  ?  Our  answer  is  not  doubt- 
ful :  God  promises  to  sprinkle  his  people  with  water  so  clean  that  it  shall 
wash  away  'alljheir  filtJiiness  and  all  their  idols.^  This  must  certainly  be 
<}leaner  water  than  that  of  Jordan,  or  any  Baptist  pool.  Its  purifying  prop- 
erties take  efiect  on  the  spiritiial  and  moral  character.  In  the  light  of  this 
passage,  we  may  paraphrase  John  3:  5,  thus  : — '  Except  a  man  be  born  of 
that  water  which  shall  cleanse  him  from  all  his  filthiness,  and  from  all  his 
idols,  and  of  tha^t  Spirit  which  shall  take  away  his  stony  heart,  and  give  him 
a  heart  to  keep  God's  judgments  and  dp  them,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom 
of  God.'  Here  is  the  outward  gleansing  and  the  inward  quickening  which 
^e  found  before.  *  -i 

We  will  notice  one  or  two  other  passages  in  the  New  Testament  in  which 
the  same  twofold  agency  appears.  John  says,  (lEpis.  5:  4 — 6,)  '  What- 
soever is  born  of  God  overcometh  the  world ;  and  this  is  the  victory  that 
overcometh  the  world,  even  our  faith.  Who  is  he  that  overcometh  the  world, 
but  he  that  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  ?  This  is  he  that  came 
"by  water  and  blood;  not  by  water  only,  but  by  water  and  blood.'  Here 
that  new  birth,  which  gives  victory  over  the  worid,  is  made  the  effect  of  faith 
in  him  whose  operation  is  twofold — by  water  and  blood.  Now  it  is  certain 
that  the  blood  in  this  case  is  spiritual ;  for  John  says  in  this  same  epistle  that 
'  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  from  all  sin ;'    and  we  know  that  sin  is 


TWOFOLD  NATURE  OF  THE  SECOND   BIRTH.  281 

purged  only  by  the  Spirit  of  the  living  God.  The  blood  by  which  Jesus 
Christ  'came^^  was  that  which  he  brought  from  heaven,  (see  John  6:  51,) 
that  which  he  poured  through  the  veins  of  his  spiritual  body,  the  church, 
communicating  to  every  member  the  divuie  nature  ;  thus  effecting  the  second 
birth,  and  giving  victory  over  the  world.*  If  then  he  came  by  spiritual  blood, 
he  came  also  by  spiritual  water.  There  would  be  not  only  an  utter  incon- 
gruity of  idea,  but  an  absolute  violation  of  the  plain  import  of  John's 
language,  in  construing  it  as  though  he  meant  to  say  that  Jesus  Christ  came 
by  his  own  blood,  but  resorted  to  Jordan  for  water.  This  passage  is  evi- 
dently a  parallel  of  John  3:  5,  to  be  explained  as  that  is,  by  comparison  with 
Ezekiel's  promise.  We  may  explain  it  thus : — '  This  is  he  who  came  to  effect 
the  second  birth,  and  give  victory  over  the  world,  by  cleansing  power  and 
inward  life.'f 

Again,  Paul  says,  (Titus  3:  5,)  ^According  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  hi/ 
the  ivashing  of  regeneration^  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. ^  Here  is 
water  and  spirit.  The  phraseology  in  this  case,  as  clearly  as  in  Jno.  3:  5, 
indicates  its  derivation  from  Ezekiel  36:  25 — 27.  '  The  washing  of  regen- 
eration' corresponds  to  the  '  sprinkling  with  clean  w^ater ;'  and  *  the  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  is  almost  identical  with  the  '  giving  a  new  heart  and  a 
netv  spirit.' 

To  the  same  class  w^e  must  refer  Mark  16:  16 — '  He  that  helieveth  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved.'  Here  are  two  requisites  of  salvation.  And  as  we 
have  found  in  the  previous  case,  that  the  two  requisites  of  salvation  are  out- 
ward cleansing  and  inward  life,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  this  passage  teaches 
the  same  doctrine.  We  need  not,  however,  rely  on  this  presumption.  The 
passage  itself,  viewed  in  connection  with  the  whole  discourse  in  which  it  oc- 
curred, requires  no  collateral  aid  to  estabhsh  its  meaning.  Comparing  Mark 
16:  16,  with  Acts  1:  4—8,  and  Matt.  28:  19,  (all  items  of  Christ's  parting 
instructions  to  his  disciples.)  we  find  the  discourse,  put  together,  amounted 
to  this : — John  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  JToZy 
Grhost  not  many  days  hence.  Tarry  therefore  at  Jerusalem,  until  ye  receive 
this  baptism.  Then  go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  with  the  same 
baptism  ;  i.  e.,  not  in  the  name  of  John,  but  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost.  He  that  believeth  and  is  thus  hai^tized,  shall  be  saved,'  &c. 
The  fact  that  the  disciples  did  not  at  first  thus  understand  this  discourse,  is 
no  valid  objection  to  our  paraphrase.     They  wholly  mismiderstood  the  direc- 

*  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  import  of  the  expression,  *  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  see 
the  article  on  the  New  Covenant,  p.  ISg. 

t  li  is  probable  that  there  is  an  allusion  in  1  John  5:  6,  to  the  fact  recorded  in  John  19: 
34.  While  Christ  was  on  the  cross^  'one  of  the  soldiers  with  a  spear  pierced  his  side, 
and  forthwith  came  thereout  hlcod  and  water.'  This  fact  was  doubtless  recorded,  and 
may  be  properly  viewed,  as  a  visible  symbol  of  that  spiritual  effusion  by  which  Christ 
redeems  the  church.  As  such,  it  furnishes  several  interesting-  sug-gestions:  1.  It  shows 
tl^t  the  redeeming-  influence  is  twofold.  2.  It  exposes  the  error  of  those  who  think  that 
one  of  those  influences  is  the  water  of  earthly  streams.  The  blood  and  water  of  salva- 
tion both  flow  from  the  same  (buntain—tbe  heart  of  Jesus  Christ.  3.  It  sueg-esls  the 
relation  which  the  true  spiritual  blood  and  water  of  Jesus  Christ  bear  to  each  other.— 
As  we  have  shown  above  that  the  first  is  an  inward,  and  the  second  an  outward  ag-eney, 
so  in  the  symbol,  the  blood  issued  from  the  verij  heart,  while  the  water  proceeded  fron» 
the  pericardium  which  surrounds  the  heart. 


232  TWOFOLD   NATURE   OF  THE   SECOND   BIRTH. 

tion,  '  Gfo  teach  all  nations,''  and  seem  never  to  have  suspected  that  their 
commission  extended  beyond  the  Umits  of  Jewry,  till  the  affair  of  Cornelius. 
See  Acts  10.  The  meaning  of  Mark  16:  16,  then,  is  this — '  He  that  believ- 
eth  the  word,  and  is  baptized  Avith  the  Spirit,  shall  be  saved.' 

There  can  be  no  honest  doubt  that  all  these  statements  of  the  two  ele- 
ments of  salvation,  (viz.  John  3:  5,  1  John  5:  6,  Titus  3:  5,  and  Mark  16: 
16,)  manifestly  identical  as  they  are  with  each  other,  are  all  to  be  referred, 
as  we  have  especially  referred  John  3:  5,  to  that  notable  promise  of  the  new 
covenant  in  Ezekiel  36:  25 — 27,  as  their  original ;  and  that  promise  shows 
beyond  all  denial  that  the  water  which  God  employs  in  regeneration  is  not 
an  earthly  element,  but  one  that  is  able  to  purify  men  '  from  all  their  filthi- 
ness  and  from  all  their  idols.' 

Renouncing,  then,  faithfully  and  forever,  the  foolishness  of  those  who,  by 
misinterpreting  these  texts,  exalt  water  baptism  into  partnership  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  the  work  of  salvation,  and  regarding  the  two  agencies  of  the 
second  birth,  as  both  spiritual,  both  proceeding  from  Christ,  both  taking  ef- 
fect on  spiritual  and  moral  character,  we  proceed  to  examine  more  particu- 
larly the  distmction  between  those  agencies,  their  separate  natures,  and 
operations. 

The  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ  was  of  a  twofold  character,  verbal  and  spir- 
ituaL  He  first  instructed  his  disciples  personally,  then  he  ascended  to  the 
Father,  and  sent  upon  them  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  fact,  compared  with 
1  John  5:  6 — Hhis  is  he  who  came  by  water  andblood,^  (a  text  which  seems 
designed  to  be  a  comprehensive  statement  of  the  nature  of  the  whole  ministry 
of  Christ) — suggests  the  theory  that  the  first  agency  of  regeneration,  desig- 
nated by  the  term  water,  is  the  word  of  God,  outward  spiritual  instruction, 
such  as  Christ  ministered  while  he  was  on  earth  in  person :  and  that  the 
second  agency,  designated  by  the  term  blood,  is  that  Spirit  which  was  dis- 
pensed for  the  first  time  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  whose  operation  is  on  the 
inward  life.     Let  us  see  if  this  theory  is  supported  by  the  record. 

I.  We  will  notice  in  the  first  place,  some  passages  which  testify  directly 
in  this  matter.  In  the  13th  chapter  of  John  we  have  an  account  of  Christ's 
washing  his  disciples'  feet  with  Hteral  water.  This  was  evidently  a  symbolical 
transaction.  Accordingly  in  the  conclusion  of  it,  Christ  passes  from  the 
shadow  to  its  spiritual  substance.  On  Peter's  refusing  to  be  washed,  Christ 
says  to  him,  '  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part  with  me.'  In  this  he 
evidently  refers  to  a  spiritual  washing.  Having  thus  made  known  his  mean- 
ing, he  afterwards  says,  clearly  alluding  to  the  moral  state  of  his  disciples — 
*'Ye  are  clean,  but  not  all:"*  i.  e.,  Judas  excepted.  In  the  15th  chapter, 
ver.  3,  he  repeats  this  declaration,  using  the  same  words,  and  specifies  the 
agency  by  which  the  disciples  were  cleansed  ; — 'Now  ye  are  clean  through 
THE  WORD  which  I  have  spoken  mito  you.''  In  the  first  case  he  sets  forth 
water  as  the  symbol  of  that  purifying  agency,  which  in  the  last  case  he  calls 
*  the  word''  of  his  personal  ministry.  Paul's  language  in  Eph.  5:  26,  is  still 
more  directly  to  our  purpose : — '  Christ  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself 
for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it,  with  the  washing  of  water  by 
the  word.''  Here  is  the  symbol,  and  the  tiling  signified,  in  immediate  con- 
junotion. 


TWOFOLD  NATURE   OF  THE   SECOND   BIRTH.  233 

II.  Our  theory  will  receive  indirect  confirmation  by  an  examination  of  the 
scriptural  meaning  of  the  term  '  regeneration.'     That  word  occurs  but  twice 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  both  cases  it  stands  connected  with  the  primary 
element  of  the  second  birth.     We  have  already  noticed  one  of  those  instances, 
(Titus  3:  5,)  where  Paul  speaks  of  the  '  washing  of  regeneration  and  the 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  and  have  identified  the  '  washing  of  regenera- 
tion' with  the  '  water'  of  John  3:  5,  and  1  John  b:  Q^  and  with  the  '  sprink- 
ling with  clean  water'  of  Ezekiel  36:  25.     The  other  instance  is  Matt.  19: 
28.     After  the  young  ruler  had  gone  away  sorrowful,  Christ  delivered  his 
startling  doctrine  of  the  danger  of  those  who  have  riches.     '  Then  said  Peter, 
Behold  we  have  left  all  and  followed  thee.     What  shall  we  have  therefore  ? 
And  Jesus  said  vmto  them.   Ye  tvhich  have  follotved  me  in  the  regeneration^ 
when  the  Son  of  man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  on 
twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.     And  every  one  that  hath 
forsaken  houses,  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or  father,  or  mother,  or  wife,  or  chil- 
d^ren,  of  lands,  for  my  name's  sake,  shall  receive  an  hundredfold,  and  shall 
inherit  everlasting  life.'      It  is  evident  from  what  goes  before,  and  from  what 
follows  after  the  clause  we  have  marked  by  italics,  that '  following  Christ  in 
the  regeneration,'  is  equivalent  to  'forsaking  all  for  his  sake.^     Christ  had 
forsaken  father  and  mother,  and  had  adopted  for  his  relations,  those  who  did 
the  will  of  his  Father  in  heaven.     His  disciples  therefore  in  doing  the  same, 
'followed^  him ;  and  they  had  '  followed  him  in  the  regeneration  ;'  for  what 
term  can  be  found  more  fit  to  describe  the  abandonment  of  one  parentage 
and  the  adoption  of  another,  than  regeneration  ?     '  The  washing  of  regener- 
ation,' then,  is  that  process  of  purification  from  earthly  attachments,  which 
the  disciples  went  through,  during  Christ's  personal  ministry.     It  is  the  neg- 
alive  part  of  the  second  birth,  the  '  putting  off  the  old  man' — not  the  '  put- 
ting on  the  new  man,'  for  that  is  the  ^renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;'  and  in 
the  disciples'  case  '  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given.'     It  is  the  abandon- 
ment of  idolatri/  ;  and  thus  described,  it  beautifully  accords  with  the  first 
part  of  Ezekiei's  promise—'  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall 
be  clean  ;  'from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your  idols,  will  I  cleanse 
you.''     Now  we  ask  hy  ivhat  means  did  Christ  purge  his' disciples  from  their 
earthly  attachments  ?     What  w^as  the  '  clean  water^  which  he  sprinkled  upon 
them  ?     The  answer  will  be  obvious  to  any  one  who  will  look  through  his 
instructions,  and  observe  their  main  scope.     A  specimen  will  serve  our  pur- 
pose.    '  Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  on  earth.'     '  Take  no  thqught 
saying,  what  shall  we  eat  and  what  shall  we  drink,  and  wherewithal  shall  we 
be  clothed  ?'     'He  that  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy 
of  me.'     It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle,  than  for 
a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.'    'Labor  not  for  the  meat  which 
perisheth,  but  for  that  which  endureth  to  everlasting  life.'     Here  is  the  'clean 
water'  which  purged  the  disciples  from  the  idols  of  this  world.     It  was 
Christ's  WORD.     He  says  himself,  '  Ye  are  clean  through  the  word  which  I 
have  spoken  iinto  you."*     During  his  personal  ministry,  he  was  fulfilling  the 
first  part  of  the  promise'  '  sprinkling'  his  followers  with  his  word,  cleansing 
them  '  from  all  their  filthiness,  and  from  all  their  idols.' 
29 


2Zi  TWOFOLI>  NATURE  OP  THE  SECOND  BrRTl!. 

III.  To  set  this  subject  in  a  still  stronger  ligbt,  we  will  cite,  from  the  Kew 
Testament,  several  statements  of  the  two  agencies  of  salvation,  which  are 
made  in  direct  terms,  without  figure  or  symhol.  If  our  theory  is  correct, 
viz.,  that  the  first  agency  of  the  second  birth,  designated  by  water,  is  the 
word  of  Christ ;  and  that  the  second,  designated  by  spirit  or  hlood,  is  the 
Holy  Ghost,  it  is  obvious  that  the  former,  operating  on  the  understanding,  is 
an  intellectual  agency,  and  that  the  latter,  operating  on  the  heart,  is  a  spir- 
itual agency.  In  accordance  with  this  distinction,  it  will  be  seen  that  in 
each  of  the  following  passages,  there  is  a  conjunction  of  the  spiritual,  with  an 
intellectual  element.  '  The  laAv  was  given  by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth 
came  by  Jesus  Christ.'  John  1:  17.  *  Christ  crucified  .  .  .  isihe  power  o^ 
God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God.'  1  Cor.  1:  24.  '  God  hath  chof^-en  you  to  sal- 
vation through  sanctification\f  the  Spirit  and  belief  OF  the 'truth.' 
2  Thess.  2:  13.  'Ye  have  purified  your  souls,  in  obeying'  the  truth  through 
the  Spirit,''  1  Pet.  1:  22.  '  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  minds,  and  write 
them  in  i\iQ\v  hearts.''  Heb.  8:  10.* 

Our  conclusion  from  all  this  is,  that,  as  Christ's  ministry  was  of  two  sorts, 
verbal  and  spiritual,  so  the  second  birth  is  effected  by  two  agencies,  the  word 
and  the  spirit,  signified  by  the  symbols,  wdter  and  btood,  operating  respec- 
tively on  the  mind  and  the  heart,  and  sanctifying  respectively  the  inward 
and  the  outward  man.  It  should  also  be  noted  as  an  appurtenance  of  this 
conclusion,  that  in  the  original  order  of  Christ's  ministration,  and  doubtless 
in  the  order  of  nature,  the  word  goes  before  the  Spirit,  the  washing  of  regen- 
eration before  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Remarks.  1.  These  views  show  the  true  place  of  the  disciples  before  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  and  of  the  Old  Testament  saints,  on  the  scale  of  attainment. 
The  disciples  may  be  said  to  have  been  born  of  water,  when  Christ  declared 
them  clean  through  the  word  :  but  they  were  not  born  of  the  Spirit,  for  the 
Spirit  of  adoption  had  not  come.  So  the  Old  Testament  saints,  so  far  as  they 
were  sprinkled  with  the  spiritual  word,  and  cleansed  from  idolatry,  were  in 
the  primary  stage  of  the  second  birth,  though  none  were  born  of  God  till  after 
the  resurrection  of  Christ. 

2.  These  views  show  the  falsehood  of  the  common  doctrine  of  instantaneous 
regeneration.  This  doctrine  contracts  into  a  moment  of  time,  a  work  which, 
in  the  case  of  the  disciples,  manifestly  occupied  many  years.  The  first  and 
least  important  half  of  that  work,  viz.,  the  Avashing  of  regeneration,  required 
the  whole  period  of  the  personal  ministry  of  Christ ;  and  it  may  reasonably 
be  inferred,  that  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  occupied  at  least  as  long  a 
period.  We  do  not  deny,  but  believe,  that  important  instantaneous  advan- 
ces were  made  in  that  work,  from  time  to  time,  by  the  formation  of  new  pur- 
poses, and  by  new  efhisions  of  the  Spirit ;  but  we  object  to  representing  the 
entire  new  birth  by  water  and  Spirit,  as  the  work  of  a  moment,  first,  because 

*  As!  llie  word  of  believers  is  llie  eflect  of  llie  word  of  Christ,  and  is  a  manifestation 
most  directly  of  the  understanding-,  we  may  properly  cite  here,  also,  the  tbllowing- 
texts,  a**  examples  of  the  fonjianction  of  the  inlellcetnal  with  the  spiritual  element: — 
'  If  (hon  shall  covfcss  wilk  thy  mouth  tlie  Lord  Jesus,  and  shall  believe  in  thine  heart  that 
God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shall  he  saved.'  Rom.  10:  9.  *  They  overcame 
the  dragon  by  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  and  by  the  word  of  their  testimony.'  Rev.  12:  11. 


TWOFOLD   NATURE   OF  THE  SECOND   BIRTIL  235 

tihe  representation  is  unscriptural,  and,  secondly,  because  we  believe  they 
who  thus  contract  the  time  of  the  work,  proportionably  undervalue  its  im- 
portance. 

3.  Wq  perceive  in  the  light  of  this  subject,  two  egregious  mistakes  which 
most  religionists  of  the  present  day  make  in  their  application  of  the  text — 
'  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.'  First,  they  bring  down  the  term  watei'  from  its  spiritual 
to  its  hteral  meaning,  thus  making  a  carnal  cerepaony  one  agent  of  the  second 
birth  ;  and  secondly,  they  bring  down  in  like  manner  the  term  spmi  from  the 
glorious  meaning  which  it  had  in  the  primitive  church,  to  that  inferior  sense 
which  actually  belongs  to  the  term  water,  thus  reducing  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation to  the  dead  level  of  Judaism. 

4.  We  see  the  importance  of  '  holding  fast  the  form  of  sound  words'  on  the 
subject  of  the  second  birth.  In  almost  every  instance,  where  the  work  of 
salvation  is  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  we  have  seen  it  ascribed  to  a 
twofold  agency.  Whoever  conceives  of  it  as  the  effect  of  outward  instruction 
alone,  on  the  one  hand,  or  of  inward  grace  alone,  on  the  other,  has  left  the 
light  of  scripture,  and  is  sure  to  stumble  in  darkness.  Carnal  behevers  are 
prone  to  rely  on  outward  agencies.  To  such  we  commend  the  correction  of 
the  apostle — '  Jesus  Christ  came  not  hy  water  only,  but  by  water  and  hlood.'* 
The  danger  to  which  spiritual  persons  are  most  exposed,  is  that  of  ascribing 
the  second  birth  to  inward  grace  alone,  or  at  least  of  not  giving  due  impor- 
tance to  outward  instruction.  Much  of  the  testimony  in  the  Perfectionist  of 
1834-5,  was  of  evil  tendency  in  this  respect.  It  Avas  fashionable  to  run  the 
contrast  between  '  law  and  grace.'  This  phraseology  makes  grace  alone  the 
rival  and  successor  of  the  law.  Now  mark  the  language  which  an  apostle 
uses  in  stathig  the  contrast  between  the  Mosaic  and  Christian  dispensations ; 
'  The  law  was  given  by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ.' 
These  are  '  sound  words.*  The  gospel  is  a  dispensation  not  of  grace  alone, 
as  antinomian  Perfectionists  (if  any  such  there  be)  maintain  ;  nor  of  grace 
and  law,  as  Oberlin  Perfectionists  maintain  ;  but  of '  grace  and  truth,'  ac- 
cording to  the  word  of  God.  It  is  not  the  power  of  God  alone,  nor  the  power 
of  God  and  the  law  of  God,  but '  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God.* 
In  thus  conjoining  truth  with  grace,  we  lay  a  foundation  for  all  those  measures 
which  were  empLjyed  in  the  primitive  church,  for  the  outward  education  and 
correction  of  believers :  we  make  the  inculcation  of '  sound  doctrine'  a  full 
counterpart  and  safe  successor  of  the  law. 

Fmally,  we  exhort  all  who  rejoice  in  the  '  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  to 
see  to  it  that  they  are  also  '  sanctified  and  cleansed  with  the  washing  of  wa- 
ter by  the  word  ;  that  they  may  be  presented  to  Christ,  glorious,  not  having 
spot  or  wrmkle,  or  any  such  thing,  but  holy  and  without  blemish.' 


§  32.    TWO  CLASSES  OF  BELIEVERS. 

"  As  he  spake  these  words,  many  believed  on  him.  Then  said  Jesus  to  those 
Jews  which  believed  on  him,  If  ye  continue  in  my  word,  then  are  ye  my  disci- 
ples indeed  ;  and  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  you  free. 
They  answered  him.  We  be  Abraham's  seed,  and  were  never  in  bondage  to  any 
man  :  how  sayest  thou.  Ye  shall  be  made  free  ?  Jesus  answered  them,  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Whosoever  committeth  sin,  is  the  servant  of  sin.  And 
the  servant  abideth  not  in  the  house  for  ever  :  but  the  Son  abideth  ever.  If  the 
Son  therefore  shall  make  you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  indeed."  John  8:  30 — 36. 

REMARKS. 

1.  It  is  evident  from  this  passage  that  persons  may  properly  be  said  to 
^believe  on  Christ,^  who  are  not  saved  from  sin.  Christ  addressed  those 
who  are  here  said  to  have  '  beheved  on  him/  not  as  already  children  of  God, 
but  as  merely  candidates  for  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  liberty 
of  the  gospel :  and  afterward  he  plainly  told  them  that  they  were  wicked 
men.  See  ver.  37,  40,  &c.  Their  believing  on  him  was  simply  a  recogni- 
tion of  his  divine  authority,  and  a  surrender  of  themselves,  more  or  less  sin- 
cere, to  his  tuition  for  the  time  being.  They  beheved  on  him  in  a  general 
way  as  a  teacher,  but  they  could  not  at  that  time  believe  on  him  as  a  spirit- 
ua;l  Savior,  or  in  the  specific  doctrines  by  which  ultimate  salvation  is  effected, 
because  his  revelation  of  himself  in  his  spiritual  character,  and  of  his  great 
system  of  saving  truth,  had  not  then  taken  place,  but  was  awaiting  his  death 
and  resurrection,  and  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit.  They  had  entered  the 
school  of  the  gospel,  but  had  hardly  yet  commenced  their  studies,  and  knew 
little  or  nothing  of  the  spiritual  science  which  was  to  be  taught  in  that  school, 
or  of  its  moral  results.  We  learn,  from  the  fact  that  they  are  said  to  have 
'  beheved  on  Christ,'  that  the  term  '  believer'  is  generic,  and  properly  ex- 
tends to  all  classes  in  the  school ;  from  those  who  have  just  entered,  and  are 
yet  in  a  sinful  state,  to  those  who  have  attained  full  salvation.  At  the  pres- 
ent day,  therefore,  we  should  regard  all  as  believers,  who  recognize  the 
divine  authority  of  Christ,  and  surrender  themselves  to  his  instructions ;  all 
who  submit  themselves  to  the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  and  manifest  faith  in  the 
words  of  Christ,  however  general  and  indefinite.  Revivals,  and  the  efforts 
of  the  churches,  so  far  as  they  turn  men  to  incipient  faith,  cause  them  to 
respect  and  study  the  Bible,  and  thus  introduce  them  to  the  school  of  the 
gospel,  are  to  be  recognized  as  valuable  and  necessary  agencies.  There  are 
multitudes,  undoubtedly,  in  the  sinful  churches,  who  have  been  brought  by 
these  agencies  to  a  submission  to  Christ  as  their  instructor,  and  are  there- 
fore properly  entitled  t<5  the  name  of  believers. 

2.  We  observe  that  Christ  did  not  regard  mere  incipient  faith  as  a  sure 
pledge  of  true  discipleship,  but  made  continuance  of  faith  the  condition  of 
his  promise  of  final  illumination  and  liberty. '  He  did  not  say  to  those  who 
believed  on  him, '  You  are  converted,  and  therefore  your  salvation  is  secure.' 


TWO  CLASSES  OV  BELIEVERS.  237 

He  did  not  preach  to  them  the  '  perseverance  of  the  samts.'  But  he  said, 
'  If  ye  continue  in  my  word,  then  are  y«i  my  disciples  indeed,  and  ye  shall 
know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  you  free.'  It  is  evident  from  the 
subsequent  account,  that  many  of  these  believers  did  very  soon  fall  away  and 
become  bitter  enemies  of  Christ.  The  fact  then  that  a  person  is  converted, 
by  the  influence  of  a  revival  or  other  means,  to  a  present  attention  to  religion, 
and  submission  to  the  instructions  of  Christ,  does  not  insure  his  salvation. 
He  is,  for  the  time  being,  a  bejiever ;  but  whether  he  is  a  true  disciple^  i.  e. 
a  permanent  pupil  of  Christ,  remains  to  be  seen.  He  has  entered  the  school ; 
but  whether  he  has  counted  the  cost  of  a  spiritual  education,  so  that  he  is 
prepared  to  forsake  father,  mother,  brother,  sister,  houses,  lands  and  life,  for 
the  knowledge  of  Christ,  is  not  certain.  The  name  of  disciple  properly  be- 
longs, not  to  mere  believers,  but  to  continuous  believers.  It  is  not  to  be 
wondered  that  multitudes  who  are  awakened  by  revivals  to  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  claims  of  Christ,  never  attain  even  to  discipleship,  but  immedi- 
ately fall  away.  They  are  generally  led,  by  the  influence  of  those  who  are 
around  and  above  them  in  the  churches,  to  consider  t]\c-mselves  as  born  of 
God  and  sure  of  heaven ;  to  look  for  no  subsecpent  conversion ;  to  expect 
declension,  rather  than  an  upward  course.  If  they  were  made  to  know  at  the 
outset  that  conversion  is  but  an  entrance  into  a  school,  in  which  they  will  be  re- 
quired to  advance  steadily  and  patiently  from  truth  to  truth  till  they  overcome 
ALL  SIN,  and  that  until  they  thus  graduate,  they  are  only  disciples,  not  sons  of 
God,  not  secure  from  apostasy  and  destruction,  we  might  look  for  deeper 
purposes  and  more  durable  conversions.  However,  even  under  the  present 
unfavorable  influences,  it  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  many  converts  of  the 
Q]im:G]iQ^  continue  to  believe  and  seek  the  words  of  Christ,  more  or  less  ear- 
nestly, and  thus  prove  themselves  true  disciples. 

3.  We  notice  that  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  the  liberty  which  it 
gives,  is  promised  to  those  who  have  entered  upon  a  permanent  discipleship, 
as  a  future  attainment.  '  Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make 
you  free.'  This  language  implies  that,  though  they  have  believed  on  Christ, 
and  are  true  disciples,  they  do  not  yet  know  the  truth,  and  are  not  yet  made 
free ;  though  they  have  been  converted,  a  second  and  greater  conversion 
awaits  them,  without  which  the  first  cannot  avail  to  give  them  true  freedom. 
We  remark  also,  that  whereas  the  first  conversion  is  an  action  or  purpose  of 
their  own — a  voluntary  movement  by  which  they  place  themselves  under  the 
instructions  of  Christ, — the  second  conversion  is  described  as  an  effect  wrought 
upon  them  by  truth.  The  first  is  proximately  their  own  work  ;  the  second 
the  operation  of  God.  If  they  who  labor  to  effect  the  first  conversion  by  in- 
structing men  to  'change  their  purpose,'  to  '  make  up  their  minds  to  serve 
God,'  &c.,  would  also  instruct  them  that  this  change  of  purpose  and  making 
up  the  mind  is  the  introduction  not  to  the  second  birth,  but  only  to  disciple- 
ship, and  that  they  are  to  look  forward  to  a  second  cfonversion,  in  which  the 
principal  agent  is  not  their  own  will,  but  the  spiritual  power  of  truth,  there 
would  be  no  reasonable  ground  of  objection  to  this  kind  of  revival  preaching. 

4.  It  is  apparent  from  the  passage  under  consideration  that  the  second 
conversion  which  is  promised  to  true  disciples,  is  nothing  less  than  a  deliver- 


238  TWO   CLASSES   OP  BELIEVERS, 

ance  from  all  sin.  When  Christ  ha/  said  to  them  that  believed  on  him,  '  If 
ye  continue  in  my  word  ...  ye  fe>iall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall 
make  you  free,'  they  replied,  (as  persons  having  a  high  conceit  of  their  own 
state  naturally  would,)  '  We  be  Abraham's  seed,  [i.  e.  members  of  the  true 
church,]  and  were  never  in  bondage  to  any  man :  how  sayest  thou,  Ye  shall 
be  made  free  ?'  He  answered,  'Verily,  verily^  I  say  unto  you^  zvliosoever 
committeth  sin,  is  the  servant  of  sin ;^  i.  e.,  'though  you  are  Abraham's 
seed,  the  chosen  people  of  God,  members  of  the  true  church,  externally  free- 
men, though  you  even  believe  on  me,  and  have  commenced  a  true  disciple- 
ship,  yet  if  you  commit  sin,  the  woi-st  of  slavery,  viz.  spiritual  bondage,  is 
upon  you.'  Thus  he  plainly  gave  them  to  understand  that  when  he  said, 
"*  Ye  shall  be  made  free,^  he  referred  to  freedom  from  sin.  And  it  is  evi- 
dent he  intended  freedom  from  all  sin,  from  the  obvious  and  necessary  im- 
port of  the  sentence,  '  Whosoever  committeth  sin,  is  the  servant  of  sin.' — 
'To  say,  (as  some  would  have  it,)  '  Whosoever  committeth  sin  habitually  is 
the  servant  of  sin,  would  amount  to  this — '  Whosoever  is  the  servant  of  sin, 
is  the  servant  of  sin ;'  a  mere  tautology.  The  interpolation  of  the  word 
habitually,  or  of  any  equivalent  word,  is  wholly  unauthorized,  unnecessary, 
and  destructive  of  the  force  of  the  passage.  Christ's  meaning  manifestly  is 
that  the  commission  of  the  least  sin  is  proof  of  a  sinful  state  of  heart,  and 
consequently  of  permanent  spiritual  bondage  to  sin — a  sentiment  which  the 
scrutiny  of  sound  theologians  always  confirms.  Entire  freedom  from  sin, 
then,  is  the  blessing  which  Christ  promises  to  his  true  disciples,  as  the  effect 
of  their  ultimate  knowledge  of  the  truth.  With  any  attainment  short  of 
this,  a  man  cannot  be  said  to  know  the  truth,  or  to  possess  the  liberty  of  the 
gospel.  He  may  be  a  behever,  and  a  true  disciple,  but  he  is  not  in  the 
highest  sense  a  Christian.  He  has  not  taken  the  second  degree  in  the  gos- 
pel, to  which  the  first  is  only  an  introduction.* 

*  The  inquiry  may  arise  whether  two  conversions  are  necessary  in  all  cases — whether 
a  person  may  not  pass  directly  from  a  state  o("irrelig"ion  to  perfect  holiness.  If  we  have 
reg-ard,  in  answering  this  question,  lo  the  great  fact  that  Judaism  preceded  Christianity, 
or  to  the  general  history  of  the  primitive  church,  or  to  our  own  experience  and  the  ex- 
perience of  most  Perfectionists,  we  must  say  that  it  is  at  least  a  general  principle,  that 
men  by  their  first  conversion  are  introduced  to  sinful  discipleship,  and  that  they  reach 
perfect  holiness  only  by  a  second  conversion.  Indeed  in  the  order  of  nature  it  is  neees- 
«arily  true  that  the  attention  is  first  turned  to  religion  in  general,  and  only  at  a  subse- 
quent period  to  those  particular  truths  of  religion  which  give  freedom  from  sin.  More- 
over we  doubt  whether  men,  without  some  preparatory  religious  influences,  are  in  a 
spiritual  condition  adapted  to  apprehend  the  advanced  truths  of  the  gospel.  The  reli- 
igious  influence  necessary,  however,  may  be  supplied,  in  some  cases,  by  the  general 
moral  and  religious  education  which  is  common  to  all  in  such  a  country  as  this,  without 
«  profession  of  religion,  or  connection  with  a  church.  All  persons,  in  a  land  of  Bibles 
and  religious  instruction,  are  necessarily  in  a  spiritual  state  very  different  from  that  of 
heathen.  So  that  if  we  admit  (as  facts  seem  to  require)  that  some  have  passed  directly 
from  irreligion  to  perfect  holiness,  this  would  not  invalidate  the  general  principle,  that 
«  preparatory  religious  state  must  precede  mature  Christian  experience. 

The  true  question  in  the  matter  is  this  :  Admitting  that  in  the  order  of  nature  a  twofold 
process  is  necessary,  may  not  the  interval  between  the  first  conversion  and  the  second, 
in  the  progress  of  God's  victory  over  sin,  be'shortened,  so  that  they  shall  be  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  one,  so  far  as  time  is  concerned  ?  We  intiline  to  the  affirmative. — 
It  is  obvious  that  the  interval  between  the  two  conversions,  even  under  present  influ- 
ences, is  longer  or  shorter  in  proportion  to  the  earnestness  and  intelligence  of  the  sub- 
jects.    We  believe  that  Paul,  in  consequence  of  the  vehemence  of  his  character,  and  hiss 


fWO   CLASSES   OP  BELIEVERS.  239^ 

6.  We  learn  from  this  passage  that  the  true  division  line  between  those 
who  have  security  of  salvation  and  those  who  have  not,  lies  between  those 
who  are  free  from  sin,  and  those  who  are  not.  After  saying,  '  Whosoever 
committetii  sin  is  the  servant  of  sin,'  thus  determining  who  are  servants, 
Christ  [)roceeds — '  The  servant  ahideili  not  in  the  house  forever:  hut  the  Son 
abideth  ever.  If  the  Son  therefore  shall  make  you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  in- 
deed.' In  other  words,  '  He  that  commits  sin  is  in  a  servile  condition,  and 
like  literal  servants  is  exposed  at  any  time  to  be  dismissed  from  the  household, 
and  must  ultimately  leave  it,  either  by  dismissal  or  by  becoming  a  son.  As 
a  servant,  he  is  not  a  permanent  member  of  the  family.  But  a  sod  is  by 
blood  indissolubly  joined  to  his  father,  and  has  a  natural,  perpetual  right  in 
the  household.  If  therefore  the  Son  of  God,  by  the  revelation  of  the  truth, 
shall  make  you  free  from  all  sin,  and  identify  you  with  himself,  you  shall  be 
free  from  all  fear  ot  dismissal  from  the  household  of  God  ;  and  this  is  freedom 
indeed.'  During  the  period  of  discipleship,  then,  i.  e.  after  the  first  con- 
version, and  before  the  second,  while  the  believer  is  on  the  one  hand  a  pupil 
in  the  school  of  Christ,  and  on  the  other  a  servant  of  sin,  his  relation  to  God 
is  not  necessarily  a  peimanent  one  :  he  has  no  right  to  feel  secure.  But  af- 
ter the  second  conversion,  when  he  has  been  made  free  from  sin  by  the  truth^ 
and  has  passed  from  discipleship  to  sonship,  his  relation  to  God  is  necessarily 
permanent,  and  he  has  a  right  to  feel  secure. 

We  apprehend  that  the  great  dispute  between  Methodists  and  Calvinists 
about  the  perseverance  of  the  saints,  might  be  adjusted  by  introducing  the 
theory  of  two  conversions.  Metliodists  prove  by  appeal  to  a  variety  of  texts, 
that  the  promises  of  salvation  are  conditional.  So  indeed  they  are,  to  the 
subjects  of  the  first  conversion.  '  If  «/e  continue  in  my  word,  ...  ye  shall 
know  the  truth.'  Tliis  if  everywhere  confronts  those  who  are  in  a  state  of 
sinful  discipleship.  On  the  other  hand,  Calvinists  prove  by  appeal  to  an 
equal  variety  of  texts  that  the  promises  of  salvation  are  unconditional. — 
Again  we  say,  so  indeed  they  are  to  the  subjects  of  the  second  conversion. 
'  The  Son  abideth  ever.^  '  Whosoever  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin  ; 
for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him;  and  he  cannot  sin^  because  he  is  born  of  God.' 
While  the  first  conversion  is  liable  to  failure,  because  it  is  in  a  degree  the 
work  of  man's  will,  the  second  is  forever  sure,  because  it  is  wholly  the  work 
of  God.  The  texts  quoted  by  Methodists  on  one  side,  and  by  Calvinists  on 
the  other,  clash  with  each  other  when  they  are  applied  indiscriminately  to 
all  believei-s  ;  but  harmonize  perfectly,  when  they  are  applied  separately  to 

intellectual  discipline,  oulst:  ipped  those  who  were  apostles  before  him,  and  reached  the 
truth  which  gives  freedtfin  from  sin  in  advance  of  them  all.  It  seems  then  not  iinprob-^ 
able,  that  as  the  victory  of  trufh  proi»-resses,  God  may  accumulate  influences  \a  hich 
shall  eflect  in  all  cases,  the  same  rapidity  of  Iransilion  which  was  effected  by  individual 
zeal  and  penelration  in  the  case  of  Paul.  If  we  take  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  from 
Egypt  to  Canaan,  as  a  type  of  the  transition  from  the  fist  conversion  to  the  second, 
(and  such  an  occomodatiou  seems  to  be  authorized  by  ]  Cor.  10:  11,)  we  are  led  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  is  jiot  necessary  in  the  natui-e  of  thing's  that  theie  should  be  a  very 
long  interval.  The  Jews  were  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  between  (he  land  of  their 
bondage  and  I  he  land  of  promise.  But  if  they  had  been  faithful  to  God,  and  fit  for  the 
blessing's  of  the  land  *  flowing'  with  milk  and  honey,'  they  mig-ht  have  passed  over  in 
a  few  davs. 


240  TWO   CLASSES   OP  BELIEVERS. 

the  two  classes.  Both  parties  in  the  controversy  are  right,  and  both  are 
wrong.  The  Methodists  are  riglit  in  asserting  that  sinful  believers  are  liable 
to  fall  away,  but  wrong  in  extending  this  assertion  to  those  who  are  born  of 
God  and  saved  from  sin.  The  Calvinists  are  right  in  asserting  that  '  the 
saints  [i.  e.' they  who  are  saved  from  sin]  will  infallibly  persevere  unto  eter- 
nal life,'  but  wrong  in  extending  this  assertion  to  sinful  believers.  We  agree 
with  the  Methodists  that  the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  the  saints,  as 
applied  to  the  subjects  of  the  first  conversion,  tends  to  encourage  carnal  se- 
curity and  sloth,  because  it  finds  in  them  sinful  hearts,  prone  to  abuse  bles- 
sings. And  wc  agree  with  the  Calvinists  that  the  doctrine  of  the  perseve- 
rance of  the  saints,  as  applied  to  those  who  are  really  born  of  God,  is  safe 
and  edifying,  because  it  finds  in  them  no  sin,  and  of  course  no  disposition  to 
abuse  it ;  while  it  comforts,  strengthens,  and  establishes  them  in  holiness. 

In  like  manner  the  chief  dispute  between  Perfectionists  and  Imperfection- 
ists,  might  be  adjusted  by  recurrence  to  the  theory  of  two  classes  of  believers. 
On  the  one  hand.  Perfectionists  insist  that  the  primitive  believers  were  per- 
fectly holy.  This  is  a  truth  which  can  never  be  successfully  assailed,  so  long 
as  it  i"s  limited  in  its  application  to  those  who  had  advanced  from  primary 
discipleship  to  that  knowledge  of  the  truth  which  according  to  Christ's  prom- 
ise, makes  free  from  sin  ;  whom  Paul  called  '  spiritual'  and '  perfect,'  (1  Cor. 
2:  6—15,  Gal.  6:  1,  Phil.  3:  15,)  and  John  called  '  sons  of  God.'  (IJohn 
3:  1,  compare  3:  9,  and  5:  18.)  On  the  other  hand,  Imperfectionists  insist 
that  the  primitive  believers  were  carnal.  This  is  a  truth  equally  unassailable, 
if  it  is  restricted  to  those  who  were  ^  babes  in  Christ,'*  i.  e.  incipient  believ- 
ers. By  confounding  the  two  classes,  and  arraying  the  texts  which  relate  to 
them  separately,  in  opposition  to  each  other,  an  endless  dispute  may  be  spun 
out  on  the  question  whether  perfect  holiness  existed  in  the  primitive  church. 
By  admitting  the  distinction  of  classes,  and  assigning  each  text  to  its  appro- 
priate class.  Perfectionists  may  allow  full  force  to  all  the  evidence  which  their 
opponents  adduce  to  prove  the  sinfulness  of  the  primitive  church,  and  yet 
maintain  their  position  that  perfect  holiness  existed  in  that  church,  and  is  the 
standard  of  mature  Christianity. 

It  was  the  special  glory  of  the  primitive  church,  that  its  platform  was 
broad  enough  to  hold  all  believers — from  those  who  were  just  beginning  to 
struggle  with  sin,  to  those  who  had  attained  perfect  and  everlasting  holiness. 
On  the  one  hand  it  did  not,  like  the  platforms  of  mostmodern  churches,  bar 
out  those  who  beheved  and  professed  perfection  ;  and  on  the  other,  it  did  not, 
like  the  platforms  of  many  ultra-Perfectionists,    thrust  all  sinful  disciples 

*  This  expression  (in  1  Cor.  3:  1)  evidently  does  not  refer,  as  imperfectionists  g-ener- 
ally  insist,  to  tlie  infancy  of  the  divine  nature,  which  constitutes  men  sons  of  God.  If 
it  did,  the  passag-e  in  which  it  occurs,  by  representing-  'babes  in  Christ'  as  sinful, 
would  directly  contradict  IJohn  3:  9 — *  Whosoever  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin,' 
&c.  Tlie  natural  meaning  of  the  expression  is,  infant  bdicversin  Christ;  and  this  is  a 
very  diflerent  term  from  infant  sons  of  God.  The  term  believer,  as  we  have  seen,  covers 
both  classes  in  the  school  of  Christ;  w^hile  the  term  son  of  God,  belongs  only  to  th^d 
advanced  class.  A  recent  believer  may  be  called  a  '  babe  in  Christ'  with  reference  to 
the  infancy  of  his  belief,  and  without  any  reference  to  his  spiritual  nature.  Infant  ic- 
fiercrs  are  undoubtedly 'carnal,'  but  *  he  that  is  born  of  God,  [whether  infant  orrnature,] 
doth  not  commit  sin.' 


TWO   CLASSES   OF  BELIEVERS.  241 

*  into  outer  darkness :'  but  it  made  room  for  all ;  gave  a  home  of  union  and 
love  to  all ;  and  every  one,  whether  weak  or  strong  in  faith,  found  there  his 
'  portion  of  meat  in  due  season.'  Such  a  platform  is  glorious,  because  it 
bridges  over  the  whole  chasm  between  a  sinful  world  and  heaven.  The  plat- 
foi-ms  of  most  modern  churches  are  near  enough  to  a  sinful  world,  but  there 
is  a  '  great  gulf  between  them  and  heaven :  and  the  platforms  of  many 
modern  Perfectionists  are  near  enough  to  heaven,  but  there  is  a  'great  gulf 
between  them  and  a  sinful  world.  The  platform  of  the  primitive  church 
united  the  advantages  of  both.  It  was  not  a  starving  settlement  at  the  foot 
of  Mount  Zion,  where  men  only  hoped  to  reach  the  top  after  death  ;  nor  yet 
was  it  an  armed  and  frowning  fortress  on  the  top  of  that  Mount,  where  a 
favored  few  gloried  in  their  exaltation,  while  they  repulsed  from  them  a  world 
of  sinners  :  but  it  was  a  '  w^ay  of  holiness'  reaching  from  the  very  foot  y 
to  the  very  top  of  Zion,  easily  accessible  to  the  world  at  one  end,  and  open-  y 
ing  into  the  glories  of  eternity  at  the  other.  On  it  the  ransomed  of  the 
Lord,  of  every  grade  of  faith,  found  footing  and  help,  for  their  whole  jour- 
ney from  earth  to  heaven.  Such  a  church  platform  is  the  very  thing  needed 
above  all  others  at  the  present  hour.  Wesley  and  his  associates  almost  suc- 
ceeded in  re-opening  the  way  of  holiness  ;  but  they  failed.  Their  chief  at- 
tention was  directed  to  the  lower  end  of  the  road,  and  so  they  neglected  to 
clear  away  fully  the  rubbish  at  the  upper  end.  The  main  body  and  ruling 
power  of  their  church  was,  from  the  beginning,  the  lower  class  of  believers  ; 
and  their  efforts  were  chiefly  directed  to  the  work  of  effecting  the  first  con- 
version. Perfect  holiness  was  only  a  secondary  appendage  to  Methodism, 
even  in  its  best  days.  Hence  as  the  life  of  that  church  has  decayed,  its  at- 
tention to  perfection  has  naturally  grown  less  and  less,  till  now  it  is  like  the 
other  churches,  only  a  school  for  sinful  disciples.  The  lower  class  of  behevers 
has  swallowed  up  the  other,  and  now  occupies  the  whole  platform.  Besides, 
Wesley,  in  denying  the  security  of  the  higher  class,  left  a  dismal  barrier  at 
the  upper  end  of  the  way  of  holiness, ,  which  broke  the  communication  of  his 
church  with  heaven.  These  remarks  may  be  apphed  -without  much  alteration, 
to  Oberlin  Perfectionism,  which,  in  respect  to  the  secondary  place  of  perfect 
hohness,  the  insecurity  of  the  higher  class  of  behevers,  and  every  other  essen- 
tial feature,  is  only  an  attempted  repetition  of  the  system  of  Wesley.  The 
erection  of  a  church  in  which  perfect  and  everlasting  holiness  shall  reign  at 
the  centre,  while  believers  in  every  stage  of  discipleship  shall  find  in  it  a 
home,  is  a  work  which  remains  yet  to  be  done.  And  it  must  be  done  before 
the  kingdom  and  dominion  under  the  whole  heaven  can  be  given  to  the  saints 
of  the  Most  High. 

A  practical  deduction  from  the  views  that  have  been  presented  which  we 
wish  in  conclusion  to  suggest  and  impress,  is,  that  Perfectionists  ought  not  to 
despise  and  oppose  '  revivals,'  (by  which  we  mean  special  awakenings  of  at- 
tention to  the  general  subject  of  religion,)  but  to  encourage  and  promote  them, 
so  far  as  this  can  be  done  without  sacrificing  any  part  of  the  truth  of  the 
gospel,  and  so  far  as  they  are  directed  to  the  general  object  of  turning  men 
from  mammonism  and  vanity,  to  the  fear  of  the  Lord  and  attention  to  his 
word.  Such  revivals,  though  they  do  not  place  their  converts  on  the  ground 
30 


Si2  THE  gPIRITUAL  MAK. 

of  perfect  bolmes9,  introduce  tliem  to  the  school  of  Christ,  and  make  thei» 
candidates  for  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  and  the  liberty  of  the  gospel. 
Perfectionism  was  born  at  New  Haven  in  such  a  revival ;  and  most  of  those 
who  have  become  Perfectionists  within  the  last  ten  years,  had  previously  been 
converts  and  laborers  in  such  revivals.  The  first  conversion,  though  it  has 
not  the  secuiity,  and  of  itself  cannot  save  the  soul,  is  a  preparatory  step  to 
the  second  conversion,  and  as  such  should  be  valued. 

At  the  same  time  we  ought  to  remember  that  it  is  hut  half  a  revival^  where 
non-professors  only  are  converted.  A  whole  revival  would  be  one  in  which^ 
as  fast  as  '  the  '  impenitent'  were  converted  to  discipleship,  the  '  professors' 
would  be  converted  to  perfect  holiness.  The  work  of  conviction  would  ad- 
vance as  fast  in  the  church  as  out  of  it;  and  the  shout  of '  sinners  saved  from, 
hell/  would  be  answered  by  the  shout  of  '  Christians'  saved  from  sin. 


§  33.    THE  SPIRITUAL  MAN. 

We  have  heretofore  shown  that  regeneration  is  the  peculiar  attainment 
of  the  Christian  dispensation ;  that  the  legal  or  semi-spiritual  experience  of 
-Judaism  was  only  the  preparative  of  this  attainment ;  that  there  were  two 
classes  of  believers  in  the  primitive  church — a  carnal  class,  not  free  from 
sin,  though  baptized  with  the  Spirit — and  a  spiritual  or  perfect  class,  to 
whom  alone  belonged  the  title  of  'sons  of  God.'  We  have  shown  also  that 
the  transition  from  the  first  to  the  second  class,  though  not  very  distinctly 
marked  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  clearly  took  place  in  individual  cases, 
as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  apostolic  age,  and  in  greater  numbers  at  a  later 
period.  We  have  ascribed  this  transition  to  the  power  of  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion, apprehended  and  appropriated  by  the  believer  in  his  inmost  life  ;  and 
we  have  defined  the  change  as  one  in  which  the  flesh  is  crucified  and  the 
spirit  raised  to  victory,  so  that  the  subject  ceases  to  be  carnal,  and  becomes 
truly  a  spiritual  man.  We  propose  now  to  examine  the  records  of  the  primi- 
tive church  with  a  view  to  obtaining  a  more  exact  idea  of  the  traits  of  char- 
acter which  distinguish  spiritual  from  carnal  believers. 

1.  The  first  point  we  notice  is  that  the  spiritual  man  has  a  reneivedmind. 
'He  that  is  spiritual,'  says  Paul,  'judgeth  [i.  e.  discerneth]  all  things.' 
ICor.  2:  15.  The  reason  of  this  is  that  he  'has  the  mind  of  Christ.'  Yer.  16. 
His  intellect  is  not  only  under  the  influence  of  that  Spirit  which  '  searcheth 
the  deep  things  of  God,'  but  is  assimilated  to  it,  and  acts  in  unison  with  it. 
He  has  the  mind  of  the  '  new  man,  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the 
image  of  him  that  created  him.'  Col.  3:  10.  (See  also  Eph.  4:  23,  &  Rom. 
12:  2.)  This  renewed  mind  is  strong  and  penetrating.  Like  the  Word  of 
God  by  which  it  is  created,  and  to  which  it  is  assimilated,  it  is  '  quick  and 
powerful,  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword  ;'  and  in  a  certain  sense  we  may 


THE   SPIRITUAL  MAN.  24S 

feay  that  '  all  things  are  naked  and  open  to  it.*  Hence  it  receives  without 
staggering  and  readily  apprehends  divine  mysteries  which  mere  human  intel- 
lects are  unable  to  see  or  bear.  '  We  speak  wisdom,'  says  Paul,  '  among 
them  that  are  perfect, — even  the  hidden  wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery.  Eye 
hath  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  neither  have  entered  into  the  heart  of  man, 
the  things  which  God  hath  prepared  for  them  that  love  him.  But  he  hath 
revealed  them  unto  us  by  his  spnit, — w^hich  things  also  we  speak.'  1  Cor.  2: 
6 — 1-3.  But  he  did  not  speak  these  things  to  carnal  behevers.  To  the  mass 
of  the  Corinthian  church  he  said,  '  I,  brethren,  could  not  speak  unto  you  as 
unto  spiritual,  but  as  unto  carnal,  even  as  unto  babes  in  Christ.  I  have  fed 
you  with  milk,  and  not  with  meat ;  for  hitherto  ye  were  not  able  to  bear  it ; 
neither  yet  now  are  ye  able.'  1  Cor.  3:  12.  They  were  baptized  by  thd 
Spirit,  but  they  had  not  the  renewed  mind,  and  were  unfit  for  the  discover- 
ies which  God  held  in  readiness  for  them.  In  the  same  manner  Paul  dis- 
coursed to  the  Hebrews.  '  We  have  many  things  to  say,  and  hard  to  bo 
understood,  seeing  that  ye  are  dull  of  hearing.  For  when  for  the  time  ye 
ought  to  be  teachers,  ye  have  need  that  one  teach  you  again  what  be  the  first 
principles  of  the  oracles  of  God ;  and  are  become  such  as  have  need  of  milk, 
and  not  of  strong  meat.  For  every  one  that  useth  milk  is  unskilful  in  the 
word  of  righteousness ;  for  he  is  a  babe :  [nepios,  in  Greek,  which  is  the 
word  used  in  1  Cor.  3:  1.]  For  strong  meat  belongeth  to  them  that  are  of 
full  age,  [or  perfect — teleios  in  Greek,  the  word  used  in  1  Cor.  2:  6,]  even 
those  who  by  reason  of  use  have  their  senses  exercised  to  discern  both  good 
and  evil.'  Heb.  5:  11 — 14.  In  both  of  these  passages  (1  Cor.  2,  and  Heb. 
5,)  the  same  two  classes — the  nepioi  and  the  teldoi,  the  hahes  and  the  pei'- 
feet — are  defined  ;  and  the  perfect  are  distinguished  from  the  babes  by  hav- 
ing a  far-seemg,  discriminating,  robust,  spiritual  understanding.  To  these 
we  will  add  another  passage,  of  kindred  character,  in  which  some  important 
fruits  of  the  renewed  mind  are  brought  to  view.  '  He  gave  some  apostles, 
and  some  prophets,  &c.,  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ :  till  we  all  come  in  the  unity 
of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  [teleiori] 
man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ :  that  we  hence- 
forth be  no  more  children,  [nepioi,']  tossed  to  and  fro,  and  carried  about  hy 
every  wind  of  doctrine,  by  the  sleight  of  men,  and  cunning  craftiness,  where- 
b'y  they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive.'  Eph.  4:  11 — 14.  The  mind  of  Christ  not 
only  apprehends  freely  the  mysteries  of  God,  but  detects  readily  the  impos- 
tures of  the  devil ;  so  that  the  spiritual  man  is  firm  and  steady  in  the  truth 
of  the  gospel.  We  may  take  this  as  a  sure  criterion  of  the  state  of  behev- 
ers. They  who  are  'tossed  to  and  fro  and  carried  about  with  every  wind 
of  doctrine,^  are  babes,  i.  e.  carnal  believers.  Spiritual  believers  are  stable- 
minded. 

2.  Another  distinguishing  characteristic  of  the  spiritual  man  is  a  loving 
heart.  For  proof  of  this  point  we  might  adduce  the  whole  of  John's  first- 
epistle,  which  is  almost  exclusively  devoted  to  defining  the  character  of  a 
regenerate  man,  and  constantly  makes  brotherly  love  the  leading  test-mark. 
But  we  will  continue  our  examination  of  Paul.     He  says  in  the  sequel  of  his 


244  THE  SPIRITUAL  MAN. 

discourse  to  the  Corinthians  concerning  the  distinction  between  the  carnal 
and  the  spiritual  man — *  Ye  are  yet  carnal ;  for  whereas  there  is  among  you 
envying^  and  strife,  and  divisions,  [or  factions,']  are  ye  not  carnal,  and 
walk  as  meiif  1  Cor.  3:  3.  Separation  from  the  world,  and  stern  warfare 
with  its  evils,  are  not  evidences  of  carnality ;  but  envyings,  strifes  and  fac- 
tions within  the  circle  of  believers,  testify  unequivocally  that  selfish,  unre- 
newed hearts  are  there.  The  apostle  does  not  halve  the  matter.  He  recog- 
nizes no  such  thing  as  an  envious,  contentious  spiritual  man.  The  import. of 
his  testimony  is,  that  among  spiritual  believers  there  is  no  quarreHng.  This 
result  flows  in  part  from  the  fact,  already  brought  to  view,  that  such  believ- 
ers have  a  renewed  mind,  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  consequently  thmk  in 
unison.      But  its  true  source  is  the  renewed  heart.      The  spiritual  man 

*  dwells  in  love.'  He  has  gained  the  crown  of  all  attainments,  the  '  bond  of 
perfectness,'  which  is  charity.  Carnal  believers  may  have  many  of  the  ex- 
ternal gifts  of  the  Spirit ;  but  the  spiritual  only  have  that  loving  heart  which 

*  sufiereth  long,  and  is  kind,  envieth  not,  vaunteth  .not  itself,  is  not  puifed 
up,  doth  not  behave  itself  unseemly,  seeketh  not  her  own,  is  not  easily  pro- 
voked, thinketh  no  evil ;  rejoiceth  not  in  iniquity,  but  rejoiceth  in  the  truth; 
beareth  all  things,  believeth  all  things,  hopeth  all  things,  endureth  all  things; 
never  faileth.'  ICor.  13:  4 — 8.  This  unquestionably  is  the  grand  attamment 
which  divides  the  spiritual  from  the  carnal  believer — the  full-born  son  of 
God  from  the  '  babe  in  Christ.'  For  Paul  says — '  Though  I  speak  with  the 
tongues  of  men  and  of  angels,  and  have  not  charity,  I  am  become  cts  soun- 
ding brass  and  a  tinkling  cymbal ;  and  though  I  have  the  gift  of  prophecy, 
and  understand  all  mysteries,  and  all  knowledge,  and  though  I  have  all  faith, 
so  that  I  could  remove  mountains,  and  have  not  charity,  1  am  nothing  ;  and 
though  I  bestow  all  my  goods  to  feed  the  poor,  and  though  I  give  my  body  to 
be  burned,  and  have  not  charity,  it  projiteth  me  notJiing.'^  1  Cor.  13:  1 — 3. 
Here  are  many  and  great  gifts  and  graces  w^hich  a  man  may  have,  and  yet 
not  be  a  son  of  God.  It  should  be  noticed  that  charity  is  distinguished  not 
only  from  gifts  of  utterance,  revelations,  and  wonder-working  faith,  but  even 
from  that  which  is  commonly  accoimted  charity,  viz.  benevolence  to  the  poor, 
and  from  self-sacrificing  devotion.  Indeed  any  one  w^ho  will  study  the  defi- 
nition of  charity  above  quoted,  will  perceive  that  it  is  far  from  being  that 
outward-bound,  bustling  quality  of  character  which  usually  passes  for  reli- 
gious benevolence.  Its  elements  are  mostly  negative.  The  idea  of  '  doing 
good'  is  not  very  prominent  in  it,  but  as  Paul  says  of  it  in  another  place, 

*  it  worketh  no  ill.'*  It  is  just  that  quality  which  fits  a  man  to  live  in  social 
contact  with  his  fellow  men,  ivithout  giving  offense,  and  without  taking  of- 
fense, It  impUes  a  thorough  extinction  of  selfishness,  a  perfect  appreciation 
of  the  interests  of  others  and  of  the  value  of  peace,  and  a  quiet  reliance  on 
the  faithfulness  of  eternal  love.  The  man  who  has  it  2vill  Hve  in  peace,  in 
spite  of  all  the  sons  of  discord.  He  cannot  be  drawn  into  an  envious,  grudging, 
murmuring,  evil-eyed  spirit. 

And  here  we  may  remark  that  this  unobtrusive  spiritual  quahty  is  what  is 
needed  for  the  cure  of  the  world's  miseries,  far  more  than  an  enlargement  of 
the  '  domg-good'  sort  of  benevolence,  or  an  extension  of  the  rules  of  the 


THE  SPIRITUAL  MAN.  245 

Peace  Societies,  or  the  Introduction  of  the  social  principles  of  Fourier  and 
Owen.  Whoever  has  looked  into  the  world  reflectingly,  knows  that  selfish- 
ness, engendering  jealousies  and  strife,  is  the  most  vmiversal  and  inveterate 
malady  of  human  society.  Charity,  as  defined  by  Paul,  is  the  cure  for  this 
malady.  With  charity  the  world  might  be  a  very  comfortable  Paradise, 
though  its  external  institutions  should  remain  unchanged.  Without  it,  the 
most  perfect  organization  can  only  be  a  well  disciplined  Bedlam. 

Charity  is  the  very  essence  of  holiness.  The  terras  holiness,  perfection, 
salvation  from  sin,  &c.,  except  as  they  are  used  as  designations  of  charity, 
are  mere  shibboleths.  The  idea  of  being  sons  of  God  before  charity  is  at- 
tained, is  false,  if  Paul  is  true  ;  for  he  says,  '  If  I  have  not  charity,  1  mn 
nothing.^  Our  second  criterion  therefore  of  the  state  of  believers,  is  this : 
JEJnv?/ings,  stnfes,  and  factions  are  marks  of  carnal  believers.  Spiritual  be- 
lievers are  free  from  selfishness^  and  have  heai^ts  of  love  and  peace  which 
exclude  strife. 

3.  Another  characteristic  of  the  spiritual  man  is  an  unquenchable  desire 
of  progress.  Paul  was  certainly  a  fit  representative  of  the  spiritual  class. 
Let  us  see  what  was  his  state  of  mind.  He  says — '  I  count  all  things  but 
loss,  for  the  excellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ ;  that  I  may  know  him, 
and  the  power  of  his  resurrection,  and  the  fellowship  of  his  sufferings,  being 
made  conformable  unto  his  death ;  if  by  any  means  I  might  attain  unto  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  I^ot  as  though  I  had  already  attcmied,  either  were 
already  perfect :  but  I  follow  after,  if  that  I  may  apprehend  that  for  which 
also  I  am  apprehended  of  Christ  Jesus.  Brethren,  I  count  not  myself  to 
have  apprehended :  but  this  one  thing  I  do ;  forgetting  those  things  ivhich 
are  behind^  and  reaching  forth  unto  those  things  which  are  before^  I  press 
toward  the  mark  for  the  prize  of  the  high  calling  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus. ^ 
Phil.  3:  8 — 15.  Was  there  ever  a  more  vivid  expression  of  God-like  ambi- 
tion !  The  apostle  adds — '  Let  us  therefore,  as  many  as  be  perfect, 
BE  thus  minded  ;' — and  '  thus  minded'  will  every  one  be  who  is  truly  spir- 
itual. A  thirst  for  progressive  conquest  in  the  field  of  spiritual  attainment, 
belongs  to  the  very  nature  of  the  renewed  mind  and  the  loving  heart ;  and 
no  imagination  of  having  attained  to  unimprovable  perfection,  or  of  being  a 
passive  subject  of  grace,  will  prevent  the  spiritual  man  from  pressing  onward 
in  the  knowledge  and  service  of  Christ. 

The  leading  characteristics  of  the  spiritual  man,  then,  are  a  discriminating 
and  stable  mind,  a  quiet,  loving  heart,  and  an  energetic  ambition  for  im- 
provement. We  do  not  say  that  a  man  who  is  destitute  of  these  may  not  be 
a  Perfectionist  in  the  large  sense  of  the  term,  for  that  properly  enough  in- 
cludes all  w^ho  believe  in  the  theory  of  holiness  ;  but  we  do  say  that  without 
these  characteristics  a  man  cannot  be  called  '  perfect'  or  '  spiritual'  in  the 
primitive  sense ; — ^he  belongs  among  the  nepioi,  not  among  the  teleioi. 


§  34.     SPIRITUAL  PUBERTY. 

The  second  birth  differs  materially  from  natural  birth  in  one  respect,  viz.-, 
• — the  latter  is  the  beginning  of  a  new  personal  existence,  while  the  former 
is  a  change  superinduced  upon  a  previous  personal  existence.  In  natural 
birth  a  person  altogether  new  begins  to  exist ;  the  present  life  of  that  person 
is  not  the  continuation  or  product  of  an  antecedent  life  ;  his  memory  goes  not 
back  to  a  time  before  he  was  born.  But  when  a  man  is  '  born  again,'  his 
new  state  is  based  on  a  former  life  ;  he  carries  with  him  the  consciousness  of 
a  past  existence  ;  his  memory  refers  to  a  period  before  his  spiritual  birth,  as 
well  as  after  it ;  his  life  is  new  as  being  changed,  but  not  new  as  commencing 
existence  ;  his  spirit  has  received  new  vitality  and  he  dwells  in  a  new  element, 
but  his  individual  properties  and  powers,  constitutional  and  acquired,  are 
those  which  he  had  when  he  was  a  natural  man. 

And  it  is  not  merely  with  reference  to  natural  life  that  regeneration  is  a 
•continuation  rather  than  a  beginning  of  existence.  It  is  manifest  from  the 
representations  of  scripture,  as  we  have  shown  heretofore,  that  there  is  a  spe- 
cies of  spiritual  Hfe  previous  to  regeneration.  Under  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion, and  in  the  case  of  the  disciples,  both  before  and  after  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  there  was  a  transitional  religious  experience,  partly  legal  and  partly 
spiritual,  which  distinguished  them  from  natural  men,  but  did  not  constitute 
them  sons  of  God.  Regeneration — the  peculiar  attainment  of  the  Christian 
dispensation — had,  in  all  cases,  so  far  as  we  know,  this  preliminary  experience 
for  its  basis.  In  becoming  sons  of  God,  men  were  conscious  of  a  continuation 
not  Only  of  a  past  existence,  but  of  a  previous  spiritual  life.  The  regenerate 
state  was  the  crowning  product — the  harvest — of  the  transitional  state. 

With  an  eye  to  this  difference  between  natural  birth  and  the  second  birth, 
we  perceive,  that  in  forming  our  conceptions  of  the  change  wiiich  takes  place 
in  regeneration,  by  help  of  natural  analogies,  we  ought  to  choose  our  illustra- 
tions from  cases  which  present  a  transition  from  one  form  of  life  to  another, 
rather  than  from  those  in  which  there  is  only  a  beginning  of  existence.  If 
the  doctrine  of  metempsychosis  were  true,  and  if  men  in  their  present  natural 
existence  had  a  continuation  of  the  consciousness  wiiich  belonged  to  a  previous 
existence,  natural  birth  would  be  a  satisfactory  illustration  of  the  second  birth. 
But  as  facts  are,  regeneration  is  really  more  like  the  change  which  takes 
place  when  the  worm  becomes  a  butterfly,  than  like  the  birth  of  a  child  ;  for 
the  butterfly's  life  is  a  continuation  of  the  life  of  the  worm ;  whereas  the 
child's  life  is  an  absolute  beginning. 

The  New  Testament  furnishes  an  illustration  such  as  the  case  demands. 
Christ  says  : — '  So  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  if  a  man  should  cast  seed  into 
the  ground ;  and  should  sleep,  and  rise  night  and  day,  and  the  seed  should 
spring  and  grow  up,  he  knowcth  not  how.  For  the  earth  bringeth  forth  fruit 
of  herself ;  first  the  blade;  then  the  ear  ;  after  that^  the  full  corn  in  the  ear. 
But  when  the  fruit  is  brought  forth,  immediately  he  putteth  in  the  sickle, 
because  the  harvest  is  come.'    Mark  4:  26 — 29.    It  matters  little  whether 


SPIRITUAL    PUBERTY.  2iT 

Christ  designed  this  to  be  a  similitude  of  the  kingdom  of  God  as  an  extended 
dispensation,  or  of  that  kingdom  as  existing  in  the  souls  of  individuals  ;  for 
one  of  these  is  the  correspondent  of  the  other,  and  the  parable  is  therefore 
applicable  to  both.  Christ  used  the  figure  of  seed-sowing  so  often  to  repre- 
sent the  growth  of  the  word  of  God  in  individuals,  that  we  naturally  under- 
stand him  as  using  it  so  here.     What  then  are  we  taught  by  this  similitude  ? 

1.  It  divides  the  spiritual  growth  which  follows  the  implantation  of  the  word, 
into  three  developments — 'fi7'st  the  blade;  then  the  ear  ;  after  tJiat,  the  full 
corn  in  the  ear.^  2.  Since  the  ear  is  all  that  is  ultimately  valuable  in  the 
plant,  and  that  is  the  second  developement,  the  parable  teaches  by  impHcation 
that  the  essential  form  of  spiritual  life — that  which  alone  is  really  fruitful  and 
profitable — is  not  evolved  when  the  word  is  first  implanted,  but  appears  at  a 
subsequent  period,  after  a  preliminary  process  of  inferior  experience.  3.  The 
growth  of  the  ear  to  its  fulness  before  the  harvest,  is  a  fit  emblem  of  that 
ripening  of  character  by  discipline  which  precedes  the  transfer  of  spiritual 
believers  to  the  resurrection  world.  The  reader  cannot  fail  to  see  that  the 
sketch  presented  in  this  parable  exajctly  tallies  with  the  theory  of  spiritual  life 
which  we  have  heretofore  deduced  from  the  records  of  the  primitive  church. 
The  great  facts  of  our  theory  are  these  ;    1.    The  implantation  of  the  word  ; 

2,  a  semi-spiritual,  semi-sinful  experience ;  3,  the  second  birth,  or  commence- 
ment of  holiness  ;  4,  the  discipline  by  which  the  sons  of  God  are  perfected ; 
5,  the  judgment.  Corresponding  to  these  we  have  in  the  parable,  1,  the 
sowing  of  the  seed  ;  2,  the  growth  of  the  blade  ;  3,  the  development  of  the 
ear  ;  4,  the  growth  of  the  ear  to  its  fulness  ;  5,  the  harvesting.  The  second 
birth,  then,  is  represented  by  the  development  of  the  ear ;  and  of  course  it 
bears  the  same  relation  to  the  semi-spiritual  state  which  precedes  it,  as  the 
development  of  the  ear  bears  to  the  growth  of  the  blade.  Now  the  plant  .- 
preserves  its  identity  through  all  the  processes  of  its  growth.  The  birth  of 
the  ear,  though  a  distinct  and  very  important  phenomenon,  is  not  like  the 
birth  of  a  child,  an  absolute  beginning  of  individual  existence,  but  it  is  a 
crisis  commencing  a  new  stage  in  the  growth  which  began  at  the  germination 

of  the  blade.  At  this  crisis  the  flow^er  of  the  plant  discloses  itself,  the  pollen 
descends  upon  it,  impregnation  takes  place,  and  seed  answering  to  that  w^hich 
was  sown,  and  containing  the  perpetu^ing  principle,  first  begins  to  exist. — 
This  is  obviously  the  all-important  operation  of  the  plant ;  and  yet  its  place 
is  neither  at  tlie  beginning  nor  at  the  end  of  the  vegetating  process,  but 
midway  between  the  seed-sowing  and  the  harvest ;  it  is  based  on  a  previous 
grow^th,  and  is  matured  by  a  subsequent  grow^th.  So  we  say  that  the  second 
birth — the  grand  crisis  of  spiritual  life,  when  the  heart  opens  to  resurrection- 
truth,  and  the  spirit  of  adoption  descends  upon  it,  when  Christ  is  formed  in 
the  soul,  and  the  w^ord  begins  to  bear  fruit '  after  its  kind' — is  a  change  which 
takes  place,  not  at  the  first  conversion,  nor  yet  at  the  judgment,  but  midway  ^ 
between  the  two,  and  is  based  on  a  previous  experience,  and  matured  by  a  ^ 
subsequent  experience. 

On  the  ground  which  w^e  have  gained  by  this  similitude,  we  may  now  ad- 
vance to  a  more  exact  illustration  of  the  second  birth.  And  here  it  should 
be  remarked  that  the  value  of  such  illustrations  as  we  have  presented,  and 


248  SPIHITUAL  PUBERTY. 

are  about  to  present,  does  not  lie  merely  in  the  help  which  the  resemblances 
they  involve  give  to  our  conceptions.  There  is  in  them  a  substratum  of  more 
substantial  argument.  The  discoveries  of  science  have  demonstrated  that 
vegetable  and  animal  life  are  powers  of  the  same  kind,  exhibiting,  in  all  impor- 
tant respects,  like  processes  of  growth  and  reproduction.  And  all  advance  of 
discovery,  in  the  Bible  and  out  of  it,  tends  to  the  conclusion  that  spiritual  Hfe 
is  a  third  power  of  the  same  order,  acting  under  similar  laws.  We  may  find, 
therefore,  in  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms,  not  only  illustrations,  but 
analogies  having  in  some  degree  the  force  of  positive  argument,  for  our  assis- 
tance in  the  investigation  of  spiritual  phenomena. 

Our  first  similitude  was  taken  from  the  vegetable  kingdom.  We  will  now 
trace  the  analogy  between  the  processes  of  animal  life  and  those  of  the  '  king- 
dom of  God.'  The  natural  life  of  man  (commencing  from  birth)  presents  a 
succession  of  developments,  closely  resembling  those  which  Christ  traced  hi 
the  growth  of  a  plant — 'first  the  blade  ;  then  the  ear ;  after  that^  the  full 
corn  in  the  ear.^  Childhood  is  the  ^  blade.'  At  this  period  of  life,  human 
beings  are  entirely  destitute  of  at  least  one  of  the  normal  faculties  of  animal 
existence,  viz.,  the  power  of  reproduction.  And  this  fact  in  regard  to  their 
bodies  undoubtedly  has  its  counterpart  in  their  susceptibilities  and  intellects. 
They  are  only  the  preparatory  rudiments  of  men  and  women — blades  without 
ears.  The  attainment  oi puberty  is  the  development  of  the  ^ear.'  At  the  age 
of  fourteen  years  (more  or  less)  a  new  and  distinct  stage  of  existence  begins. 
This  is,  in  fact,  the  crisis  when  human  beings,  considered  as  integral  men  and 
women,  are  born.  A  new  life  manifests  itself  in  them,  changing  their  physical 
organizations,  and  giving  them  new  susceptibilities,  by  which  they  are  quali- 
fied for  the  dual  relations  which  belong  to  full-born  human  existence,  and  for 
reproduction.  The  ripening  of  men  and  women  mio  fulness  of  strength  and 
parentage  is  fitly  represented  by  the  growth  of  the  '  full  corn  in  the  ear.' 
But  we  need  not  go  further  into  this  part  of  the  parallel.  It  is  sufficient  for 
our  purpose  if  we  have  presented  distinctly  the  correspondence  between  the 
birth  of  the  ear  in  the  plant,  and  the  development  of  puberty  in  man.  Now 
as  we  have  seen  that  the  birth  of  the  ear  tallies  with  the  second  birth,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  attainment  of  puberty  is  also  the  parallel  of  that  spiritual  crisis. 
At  the  first  view  some  objections  m|y  arise  against  this  result ;  but  w^e  are 
persuaded  that  on  further  consideration  it  will  be  seen  that  the  crisis  of 
puberty  is  a  more  correct  representation  of  regeneration  than  literal  birth. 
Several  trains  of  thought  lead  to  this  persuasion,  among  which  are  the  fol- 
lowing : 

1.  The  second  birth,  as  we  said  at  the  beginning,  is  not  the  commence- 
ment of  a  new  individuality,  but  a  change  superinduced  vipon  a  previous 
personal  existence ;  and  the  case  which  is  wanted  in  order  to  a  perfect  illus- 
tration of  this  change,  is  one  in  which  there  is  a  transition,  not  from  non 
existence  to  existence,  but  from  one  form  of  life  to  another.  Literal  birth, 
considered  as  the  beginning  of  a  child's  existence,  is  not  such  a  case.  True, 
we  may  go  back  of  actual  birth,  and  trace  in  the  embryo  the  same  succession 
of  developments  which  we  have  noted  in  the  plant.  There  is  the  begetting, 
answering  to  the  sowing  of  the  seed ;  the  primary  growth  without  motion, 


SPIRITUAL    PUBERTY.  249 

answering  to  the  blade ;  the  quickenmg  of  the  embryo,  answering  to  the 
birth  of  the  ear ;  the  subsequent  maturing  of  the  child,  answering  to  the 
growth  of  the  corn  to  its  fulness  ;  and  the  birth,  answering  to  the  harvest. 
The  correspondence  of  all  this  with  the  true  theory  of  spiritual  growth  is  as 
remarkable  as  the  parallel  in  the  case  of  the  plant ;  and  it  goes  to  prove  that 
the  laws  of  life  are  the  same  in  all  departments.  But  the  objection  is  that 
birth  of  this  kind  is  a  transition  from  an  unconscious  existence  to  a  conscious 
one  ;  i.  e.  it  is  the  he  ginning  oi  personal  existence  ;  whereas  regeneration  is 
a  transition  from  one  kind  of  personal  existence  to  another,  with  a  conscious- 
ness of  identity  going  before  and  after.  Moreover,  in  the  case  in  question, 
according  to  the  above  sketch  ot  the  embryo  processes,  it  is  the  quiclcening 
of  the  child  before  birth,  and  not  birth  itself,  w^hich  corresponds  to  the  devel- 
opment of  the  ear  in  the  plant,  and  of  course  to  the  second  birth,  as  repre- 
sented in  the  New  Testament.  This  makes  an  incongruity.  If  we  take  the 
embryo  process  bt/  itself  as  a  parallel  of  the  growth  of  spiritual  life,  and 
reckon  the  birth  as  the  correspondent  of  the  resurrection,  congruity  is  pre- 
served. But  in  that  case  we  have  only  the  growth  of  an  unconscious  sub- 
stance for  our  illustration  of  the  second  birth,  as  we  had  in  the  case  of  the 
plant.  The  transition  from  one  form  of  conscious  life  to  another  is  not  rep- 
resented. Whereas  if  we  take  the  crisis  of  puberty  for  our  illustration  of 
the  change  which  takes  place  in  regeneration,  the  correspondence  is  com* 
plete — we  have  personal  consciousness  going  before  and  after  the  birth. 

2.  The  apostles  appear  to  have  had  in  view  puberty  rather  than  literal 
birth,  as  the  type  of  regeneration.  This  is  not  stated  directly  in  any  of  their 
writings,  but  the  terms  by  which  they  distinguish  the  first  class  of  believers 
from  the  second,  agree  entirely  with  the  relations  of  childhood  and  puberty, 
but  do  not  agree  with  the  relations  of  the  embryo  condition  and  birth.  The 
preceding  article,  entitled  '  The  Spiritual  Man,'  exhibits  the  apostolic  mode 
of  characterizing  carnal  and  spiritual  believers.  The  carnal  are  called  nepioiy 
which  is  properly  rendered  babes  or  children,  but  cannot  be  refered  to  em- 
hri/os.  The  nepioi  spoken  of  in  Gal.  4:  3,  are  clearly  the  semi-spiritualists 
of  the  whole  Jewish  dispensation;  while  those  spoken  of  in  ICor.  3:  1,  Eph. 
4:  14,  and  Heb.  5:  13,  are  clearly  a  semi-spiritual  class  in  the  primitive 
church.  The  word  nepioi,  therefore,  does  not  belong  to  a  special  form  of 
Christian  experience,  but  characterizes  all  sinful  believers — all  who  are  in  the 
JZac?^ -state.  Indeed  it  belongs  appropriately,  and  we  might  say  exclusively, 
to  Jewish  experience ;  though,  in  the  transition  period,  Jewish  experience 
runs  into  the  Christian  dispensation.  The  spiritual  are  called  teleioi,  which 
is  properly  rendered  pterfect,  complete,  of  full  age,  full  grown,  &c.  These 
significations  fall  in  with  the  idea  of  puberty,  but  not  so  well  with  that  of  lit- 
eral birth  ;  and  the  antithesis  between  the  teleioi  and  the  nepnoi  in  1  Cor.  2: 
6,  3:  1,  Eph.  4:  13,  14,  and  Heb.  5:  13,  14,  shows  that  the  teleioi  are  'per- 
fect' in  contradistinction  from  children  and  not  from  embryos.  It  must  be 
borne  in  mind  in  the  mean  time  that  the  teleioi  only  are  reckoned  as  regen- 
erate or  '  sons  of  God'  in  the  New  Testament.  If  there  is  any  incongruity 
in  caUing  carnal  believers  '  babes'  and  '  children,'  and  yet  not  reckoning  them 
€ts  '  bom  of  God,*  it  is  to  bo  charged  to  the  apostles,  not  to  us,  as  we  cau 
31 


250  SPIEITUAL   POBERTY. 

easily  show.  In  tlie  first  place  we  have  in  the  1st  epistle  of  John  repeated 
and  categorical  definitions  of  regeneration,  which  absolutely  exclude  carnal 
behevers,  i.  e.  '  babes.'  See  1  John  3:  9,  5:  18.  In  the  next  place  Paul  in 
Gal.  4:  1 — 7,  applies  the  word  nefioi  to  Jewish  believers — to  persons  under 
the  law  'differing  nothing  from  servants ;'  nay,  he  expressly  calls  the  nepioi 
'servants'  in  distinction  from  'sons,'  (see  ver.  7,)  and  specifies  the  time  and 
manner  of  their  transition  from  the  servant  state  to  sonship,  i.  e.  the  time  and 
manner  of  their  hirth.  His  words  are  these :  '  When  we  were  children  [nepioi] 
we  were  in  bondage  under  the  elements  of  the  world.  But  when  the  fulness 
of  the  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son  ....  to  redeem  them  that 
were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons  ;  and  because 
ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying, 
abba.  Father.  Wherefore  thou  art  no  more  a  servant,  but  a  son.'  Certainly 
the  change  which  takes  place  when  believers  receive  the  sjjirit  of  Ms  Son  into 
their  hearts,  is  the  regeneration  of  the  New  Testament.  The  apostles  did  not 
recognize  any  as  '  sons  of  God,'  '  born  again,'  before  this-change.  Paul  says 
with  express  reference  to  the  very  '  spirit  of  adoption'  mentioned  above — ^As 
many  as  are  led  hy  the  spirit  of  God  they  are  the  sons  of  God  ;'  (Rom. 
8:  14  ;)  meaning  plainly  that  they  who  have  not  received  the  spirit  of  adop- 
tion are  not  sons  of  God.  Yet  we  see  that  legal  and  carnal  believers — per- 
sons who  had  not  received  the  spirit  of  adoption — are  called  nejjioi,  i.  e. 
children^  in  the  passage  above  quoted.  The  position  therefore  is  impregnable 
that  in  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament  believers  are  called  babes  and  chil- 
dren, while  yet  they  are  not  reckoned  regenerate — that  the  teleioi  only,  and 
not  the  nepioi,  are  called  '  sons  of  God.'  The  apparent  incongruity  of  this 
use  of  terms  can  be  disposed  of  satisfactorily  only  by  assuming  that  in  the 
minds  of  the  apostles  the  second  birth  occupied  the  place  in  spiritual  growth, 
which  puberty  occupies  in  natural  growth.  Regarding  pubjsrty  as  in  a  sub- 
stantial sense  the  bii^th  of  men  and  women,  (which  it  really  is,)  we  may 
properly  speak  of  those  who  have  not  attained  it,  as  babes  and  children,  and 
yet  hold  that  they  are  not  born.  This  unties  many  a  knot  in  the  New 
Testament.* 

3.  The  nature  of  the  change  which  takes  place  in  regeneration  is  illustra- 
ted more  exactly  by  puberty  than  by  literal  birth.  We  have  already  remarked 
on  the  advantage  of  having  an  illustration  in  which  there  is  a  continuation  of 
personal  consciousness  from  the  first  state  to  the  second.     But  there  are  some 

*  Possibly  this  view  may  throw  litrht  on  the  classification  of  believers  in  IJohn  2: 
12 — 14.  The  kittle  children  had  the  forj^iveness  of  sins  and  a  knovvleds^e  of  the  Father; 
(perhaps  such  kmowledj^e  as  is  alluded  to  in  John  14:  1;)  but  it  would  seem  from  the 
first  verse  of  the  chapter  that  they  were  not  free  from  sin.  These  may  be  the  nepioi.  If 
they  were  not  free  from  sin  they  certainly  could  not  come  under  the  apostle's  subsequent 
definition  of  regeneration.  The  'young  men'  were  *  strong-,  and  the  word  of  God  abode 
in  them,  and  they  had  overcome  the  wicked  one.'  These  are  the  characteristics  of  the 
teleioi,  i.  e.  of  those  who  have  attained  puberty  or  the  birth  of  manhood.  The  [fathers' 
had  '  known  him  that  is  from  the  bcp^inning-,'  i.  e.  had  attained  that  full  knowledg-e  of 
Christ  and  fellowship  with  lum  which  John  liimself  professed  to  have.  (See  the  first 
verses  of  the  epistle,  an'<l  compare  the  phrase  '  from  the  beginning-,'  in  chap.  2,  13,  14, 
-with  the  same  in  ehnp.  1:  1.)  Does  not  this  classification  correspond  to  that  in  Mark  4: 
28—'  first  the  blade,  ['little  children  ;']  then  the  ear,  [*  young  men ;]  after  that  the  full 
corn  ia  the  ear,  ['fathers.']? 


SPIRITUAL   PUBERTY.  251 

further  considerations  connected  with  this  which  should  be  brought  into  view. 

In  the  first  place,  the  development  of  puberty,  like  regeneration,  is  a  siib- 
jective  change,  while  literal  birth  is  in  a  great  measure  ohje'Mve.  By  this 
we  mean,  that  pubescence  like  regeneration  is  a  change  ivitJiin  the  person,  a 
latent  evolution  of  life  ;  while  birth  is,  in  part  at  least,  a  visible,  mechanical 
change  of  external  condition.  Here  we  may  see  why  the  crisis  of  the  second 
birth  is  so  obscurely  marked  on  the  records  of  the  primitive  church.  We 
know  that  there  were  two  classes  in  that  church,  and  that  regener^ttion  was 
the  transition-process  between  them.  The  question  has  often  been  asked — 
Why  do  we  find  those  classes  apparently  running  into  each  other,  without  any 
clear  line  of  demarkation  between  them  ? — why  is  not  the  second  birth  rep- 
resented in  the  New  Testament  as  a  notable,  definite  event, like  literal  birth? 
The  old  methods  of  illustration  give  no  satisfactory  answer  to  this  question. 
But  taking  the  crisis  of  puberty  for  the  type  of  regeneration,  we  find  a  rear 
dy  solution.  Pubescence  is  not  a  visible  and  violent  process.  It  would  be 
difficult  to  say  exactly  when  it  begins  or  when  it  ends.  It  is  latent,  though 
it  has  its  external  signs.  It  is  gradual,  though  it  is  bounded  by  certain  gen- 
eral limits  of  time.  We  are  persuaded  that  regeneration  in  the  primitive 
church  was  a  change  quite  analogous  to  this.  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that 
such  a  change  should  be  as  well  defined  on  the  chart  of  experience  as  literal 
birth,  or  as  the  popular  process  of  conversion.  The  external  line  of  division 
between  the  '  children'  and  the  '  young  men'  must  from  the  nature  of  the 
ease  be  obscure. 

Again,  at  the  period  of  puberty  there  is  a  special  development  of  the  so- 
cial susceptibihties.  Love  in  its  worldly  form  then  becomes  an  element  of 
life.  The  change  is  obviously  analogous  to  that  which  takes  place  in  the 
plant  when  the  flower  discloses  itself  and  fructification  commences.  So  also 
at  the  crisis  of  the  second  birth,  true  spiritual  love  becomes  an  element  of 
the  behever's  life.  The  special  connection  between  love  and  regeneration 
may  be  seen  in  such  passages  as  these  : — '  Beloved,  let  us  love  one  another, 
for  love  is  of  God,  and  every  one  that  loveth  is  born  of  Crod,  and  knoweth 
God,  He  that  loveth  not,  knoweth  not  God,  for  God  is  love.'  1  John  4: 
7,  8.  '  Seeing  ye  have  purified  your  souls  in  obeying  the  truth  through  the 
Spirit,  unto  unfeigned  love  of  the  brethren,  see  that  ye  love  one  another  with 
a  pure  heart  fervently:  beimj  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  in- 
corruptible, by  the  word  of  God?  1  Pet.  1:  22,  23.  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  13, 
speaks  of  '  tongues  of  men  and  of  angels,'  prophecy,  understanding  of  mys- 
teries, knowledge,  faith  that  can  remove  mountains,  beneficence  to  the  poor, 
and  martyr-devotion,  as  the  attainments  of  children.  See  ver.  8 — 11. 
With  all  these,  a  man  may  be  'nothing;'  i.  e.  not  a  '  son  of  God.'  These  are 
but  the  'blades'  of  faith.  What  then  is  the  'ear'— the  peculiar  characteristic 
of  spiritual  puberty — the  attainment  which  makes  a  man's  religion  a  sub- 
stantial and  fruitful  reality,  and  entitles  him  to  the  name  of  a  son  of  God  ? 
Again  and  again  the  apostle  answers — '  it  is  love — ^love  that  suffereth  long 
and  is  kind — love  that  envieth  not,'  &c.  &c.  The  reader  will  perceive  that 
literal  birth  fails  entirely,  as  an  illustration  on  this  point,  wliile  the  analogy 
between  pubescence  and  the  second  birth  is  strikingly  complete. 


252  THE  POWER  OF  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION. 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  advent  of  puberty  is  not  a  change  of  unportanee 
enough  to  be  called  a  hirth^  or  a  resmrectiooi,  or  a  netv  creation^  which  are 
the  titles  of  regeneration  in  the  New  Testament.  But  perhaps  the  impor- 
tance of  tlie  change  in  question  is  not  duly  considered.  Fashionable  dehcacy 
casts  a  veil  over  it  and  probably  would  prefer  not  to  recognize  it  at  all.  It  is 
manifestly  the  birth  of  a  new  life,  new  susceptibiUties  and  new  faculties,  not 
mdeed  by  themselves,  but  in  a  life  previously  existing.  And  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  regeneration  certainly  is  not  a  birth  or  a  resurrection  or  a 
creation  of  new  hfe  by  itself.  The  subject  of  the  change  had  a  previous  life 
and  consciousness,  into  wliich  the  new  life  enters.  The  latency  or  internal- 
ity  of  the  birth  in  the  case  of  puberty,  instead  of  being  an  objection,  is  an  ar- 
gument in  its  favor  ;  for  regeneration  is  certainly  a  latent,  internal  change. 
The  secresy  and  obscurity  of  the  processes  of  grace  are  indicated  in  the  par- 
able on  which  we  commented  at  the  beginning.  '  So  is  the  kingdom  of  God, 
as  if  a  man  shoidd  cast  seed  into  the  ground,  and  should  sleep  and  rise,  night 
and  day,  and  the  seed  should  spring  and  grow  up,  he  knoweth  not  how,''  A 
similar  intimation  seems  to  be  intended  in  John  3:  8.  '  The  wind  bloweth 
where  it  listeth,  and  thouhearest  the  sound  thereof,  6u^  canst  not  tell  whence 
it  Cometh  and  ivhither  it  goeth :  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  spirit.' 

On  the  whole  it  seems  plain  that  by  adopting  in  our  mmds  the  advent  of 
puberty  mstead  of  literal  birth,  as  the  emblem  of  regeneration,  we  shall  ob- 
tain truer  ideas  of  the  change— ideas  more  like  those  of  the  primitive  church 
— and  shall  find  a  solution  of  many  dark  problems  in  the  language  of  tho 
apostles  and  in  the  phenomena  of  experience  around  us. 


§  35.    THE  POWER  OF  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION. 

Paul  mentions  '  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,'  (Heb.  6:  2,)  as  one  of  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  It  will  be  found  by  an  examination  of 
all  those  passages  in  his  writings  which  distinctly  state  the  great  topics  of  his 
preachmg,  that  this  subject  was  held  by  him  as  paramount  in  importance  to 
all  others — not  excepting  even  the  death  of  Christ.  The  discussion  of  the 
resurrection  in  the  15th  chapter  of  1  Corinthians,  commences  thus :  '  Breth- 
ren, I  declare  unto  you  the  gosjjel  which  I  preached  unto  you,  which  also  ye 
have  received,  and  wherein  ye  stand ;  by  which  also  ye  are  saved,''  &c. 
After  briefly  stating  the  death  of  Christ,  the  apostle  presents  the  fact  of  his 
resurrection,  as  the  sole  foundation  of  the  behever's  hope,  and  the  chief  sub- 
ject of  that  gospel  which  he  had  received  and  preached  ;  '  If  Christ  be  not 
risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vam,'  &c.  Yer.  14.  In  giving  directions  to 
Timothy  concerning  his  ministry,  Paul  says — '  Remember  that  Jesus  Christ, 
of  the  seed  of  David,  was  raised  from  the  dead  according  to  my  gosjMl.^ 
2  Tim.  2:  8.    Uis  estimate  of  the  relative  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  tho 


THE  POWER  OF   CHRIST'S   RESURRECTION.  253 

resurrection  of  Christ,  may  be  seen  in  a  multitude  of  passages  like  the  follow- 
ing :  '  Now  it  was  not  written  for  his  [Abraham's]  sake  alone,  that  it  [faith] 
was  imputed  to  him  [for  righteousness,]  but  for  us  also,  to  whom  it  shall  be 
imputed,  if  we  believe  on  him  wlio  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead; 
who  was  delivered  for  our  offenses,  and  raised  again  for  our  justification.'* 
Rom.  4:  23 — 25.  '  If,  while  we  Avere  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God 
by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  hy 
his  life.''  Rom  5:  10.  '  Who  is  he  that  condemneth  ?  It  is  Christ  that  died, 
yea  rather,  that  is  risen  again,''  &c.  Rom.  8:  34.  '  If  thou  shalt  confess 
with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart  that  Grod 
hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.'  Rom.  10:  9.  &c.  By 
these  specimens  of  Paul's  preaching,  we  may  discover  the  occasion  of  the 
charge  brought  against  him  by  the  Athenians,  that '  he  seemed  to  be  a  setter 
forth  of  strange  gods,  because  he  preached  unto  them  Jesus,  and  the  resur- 
rection.'' Acts.  17:  18. 

Paul  evidently  preached  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  not  as  a  mere  historical 
truth,  or  as  a  pledge  of  the  future  and  distant  resurrection  of  believers,  but 
as  a  ground  of  present  justification — as  the  truth  that  is  the  food  of  saving 
faith.  His  views  of  its  present  moral  bearing,  will  be  seen  in  the  following 
passages. 

'  What  shall  we  say  then?  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound  ? 
God  forbid.  How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin,  hve  any  longer  therein  ? 
Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were 
baptized  into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death :  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also,  should  walk  in  newness  of  life  ; — for  if  we  have 
been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  he  also  in  the 
likeness  of  his  resurrection.''  Rom.  6:  1 — 5.  It  is  necessary  to  understand 
the  nature  of  the  baptism  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  in  order  to  per- 
ceive the  force  of  his  argument.  The  following  texts  determine  the  nature 
of  Christian  baptism  : — '  As  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and 
all  the  members  of  that  one  body,  being  many,  are  one  body :  so  also  is  Christ 
— for  hy  one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  hody.^  1  Cor.  12:  12,  13. 
'  As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  Itave  put  on  Christ.^ 
Gal.  3:  27.  By  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  believers  become  one  ivith 
Christ :  the  reasoning  of  the  apostle  then  proceeds  thus.  '  How  can  they, 
who  have  become  one  with  Christ,  continue  in  sin  ?  His  death  to  sin  has 
become  theirs,  and  they  are  united  with  him  in  his  resurrection.  The  same 
power  of  the  Father  which  raised  him  from  the  dead,  secures  them  from  sin.' 
'  For,'  says  he,  (Rom.  8:  11,  12,)  '  if  the  spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus 
from  the  dead,  dwell  in  you,  he  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall 
also  quicken  your  mortal  bodies,  by  his  spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you :  therefore 
brethren,  we  are  debtors  not  to  the  flesh,  to  hve  after  the  flesh,'  &c.  In 
other  words — if  Christ  is  in  us,  his  resurrection  is  in  us;  we  are  '  quickened 
together  with  him,'  and  are  no  more  in  bondage  to  a  carnal  nature.  Again, 
Paul  prays,  (Eph.  1:  19,  20,)  that  the  saints  might  know '  what  is  the  exceed- 
ing greatness  of  Us  power  to  us-ward  wlw  believe^  according  to  the  working 


i254  THE   POWER   OF   CHRIST'S   RESURRECTION. 

-of  his  mighty  power,  ivldcli  lie  lorought  in  Christ  tvJten  he  raised  Mm  front 
the  dead.''  In  thus  preaching  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  a  power  operating 
in  his  whole  body,  and  at  once  redeeming  all  the  members  of  that  body  from 
the  bondage  of  the  flesh,  the  apostle  very  properly  represents  it  in  the  15th 
chapter  of  1  Corinthians,  as  the  very  keystone  of  the  gospel — '  If  Chiist  be 
not  raised,  your  faith  is  vain,  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins.''  Ver.  17.  '  Jesus, 
AND  THE  RESURRECTION,'  is  no  morc  nor  less,  than  'Jesus,  and  salvation 
FROM  SIN.'  Subvert  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  and  you  annihilate  the 
gospel ;  for  the  author  of  the  gospel,  Avas  '  called  JESUS,  because  he  should 
^ave  his  i^eople  from  their  sins.'  Mat.  1:  21.  '  He  was  manifested,  that  he 
might  take  away  our  sins.'  1  John,  3:  5.  Without  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection, we  may  indeed  proclaim  that  Christ  died  for  our  offenses  ;  but  what 
avails  his  death,  if  the  sinner  must  still  cry,  '  0  wretched  man  that  I  am ! 
who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  his  death  V — and  such  must  be  his  cry, 
if  Christ  was  not  '  raised  again  for  his  justification.'  Let  the  slave  of  sin 
appropriate  to  hinself,  as  he  may,  the  benefits  of  the  death  of  Christ,  if  he 
cannot  make  the  resurrection  of  Christ  his  own,  he  must  still  remain  in  '  the 
horrible  pit  and  miry  clay.'  In  order  to  save  a  man,  who  has  sunk  in  the 
filth  and  darkness  of  a  '  horrible  pit,'  two  things  are  necessary :  first,  the  man 
'who  undertakes  to  save  him,  must  descend  into  the  pit ;  second,  he  must  as- 
cend with  him  that  was  lost.  The  annunciation  of  the  descent  of  a  Savior, 
would  furnish  but  poor  consolation  to  the  sufferer  in  this  case,  if  his  faith  could 
not  fasten  at  once  upon  the  hope  of  his  ascent.  Even  so,  to  preach  the  death 
of  Christ,  without  commending  his  resurrection  to  the  faith  of  sinners,  is  little 
better  than  to  mock  their  misery.  In  order  to  redeem  men  from  the  curse 
and  power  of  sin,  Christ  must  first  descejid into  fellowship  with  them,  and  then 
*  ascend  above  principalities  and  powers  ;'  in  other  vrords,  he  must  die  and 
rise  again.  This  he  has  done,  according  to  Paul's  gospel : — '  When  he  ascen- 
ded up  on  high,  he  led  captivity  captive,  and  gave  gifts  unto  men.  (Now 
that  he  ascended,  what  is  it  but  that  he  also  descended  first  into  the  lower 
parts  of  the  earth '  He  that  descended  is  the  same  also  that  ascended  up 
far  above  all  heavens,'  &c.)  Eph.  4:  8 — 10.  Hence,  Paul  could  say  to  one 
who  dwells  '  in  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth' — who  cries  from  the  bottom  of 
the  pit,  '  0  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body 
of  this  death  ?' — '  Say  not  in  thine  heart,  who  shall  ascend  into  heaven  ?  (that 
is,  to  bring  Christ  down  from  above,)  or  who  shall  descend  into  the  deep  ? 
(that  is,  to  bring  up  Christ  again  from  the  dead.)  The  word  is  nigh  thee, 
even  in  thy  heart,  and  in  thy  mouth  ;  that  is,  the  word  of  faith,  which  Ave 
preach,  (viz.  '  Jesus  and  the  resurrection ;')  that  if  thou  shalt  confess  with 
thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  believe  in  thine  heart  that  Crod  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.'  Rom.  10:  6 — 9.  Confessing  Christ 
within  you,  you  testify  your  apprehension  of  his  descent  into  the  deep,  i.  e. 
his  death  ;  behoving  in  your  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead, 
your  faith  receives  his  resurrection  in  yourself,  and  you  find  yourself  lifted 
out  of  the  dark  abyss  of  sin  and  death,  and  sitting  with  him  in  heavenly 
places. 

The  consequences  of  this  doctrine  are  so  startling,  that  Paul  seems  to  have 


THE  POWER  OP  Christ's  resurrection.  255 

anticipated  the  charge  of  insanity — 2  Cor.  5:  13 — 17.  'Whether  we  be 
beside  ourselves ^  it  is  to  God  ;  or  whether  we  be  sober,  it  is  for  your  cause. 
For  the  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us  ;  because  we  thus  judge,  that  if  one 
died  for  all,  then  all  died:  (see  the  original :)  and  that  he  died  for  all,  that 
they  which  live  should  not  henceforth  hve  unto  themselves,  but  unto  him  which 
died  for  them,  and  rose  again,  [Believers  are  '  married  to  him  that  was 
raised  from  the  dead  ;'  (see  Rom.  7:4;)  '  are  members  of  his  flesh  and  of 
his  bones  ;'  (see  Eph.  5:  30.)  The  wife  lives  not  to  herself,  but  follows  the 
estate  of  her  husband.  If  her  husband  has  past  death,  and  stands  in  the 
resurrection,  she  looks  upon  death  as  behind  her,  and  herself  as  raised  from 
the  dead.  That  we  do  not  pervert  the  meaning  of  the  apostle,  will  be  seen 
by  the  inferences  which  he  immediately  draws  from  the  foregoing  statement.] 
Wherefore  henceforth  know  we  no  man  after  the  flesh :  [inasmuch  as  we  are 
not  in  the  flesh,  but  with  Christ  in  the  resurrection  ;  and  inasmuch  as  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  have  given  to  all  men  the  same  exaltation — 
looking  at  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  we  see  all  have  past  death,  and  are  risen 
with  him :]  yea  though  we  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  hence- 
forth know  we  him  no  more.  [Christ  in  the  resii7'rection  is  our  salvation  and 
the  subject  of  our  gospel.]  Therefore,  if  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  7iew 
creature;  old  things  are  passed  away ;  behold,  all  things  are  become  new.' 
[He  has  passed  from  a  carnal  state  into  the  resurrection — from  this  world 
into  the  heavenly  world  ;  his  state  and  relations  are  as  fully  changed,  as  the 
idea  of  a  translation  from  earth  to  heaven  demands.] 

One  of  the  most  obvious  inferences  from  these  truths,  is,  that  believers 
by  fellowship  with  Christ  in  his  resurrection,  are  released  from  the  beggarly 
elements  and  carnal  ordinances  of  that  worldly  sanctuary  which  they  have 
left.  As  '  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin,'  so  he  that  is  freed  from  sin  is 
freed  from  the  law  ;  for  '  the  law  is  not  made  for  a  righteous  man.'  The 
law,  with  its  '  shadows  of  good  things  to  come,'  cannot  carry  its  claims  be- 
yond death.  If  Christ  died  for  all,  he  made  an  end  of  the  law  and  its 
shadows  for  all.  Such  was  the  judgment  of  Paul :  '  Ye  are  complete  in  him; 
' — buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  t/e  are  risen  with  him,  through 
the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead :  aiid 
you,  being  dead  in  your  sins,  and  the  uncircumcision  of  your  flesh,  hath  he 
quickened  together  with  him,  having  forgiven  you  all  trespasses  :  blotting 
out  the  hand-writing  of  ordinances  that  was  against  us,  which  was  contrary 
to  us,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  his  cross,  &c.  Let  no  man 
therefore  judge  you  in  meat  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  an  holy  day,  or  of 
the  new  moon,  or  of  the  sabbath  day,  &c.  If  ye  be  dead  with  Christ  front) 
the  rudiments  of  the  world,  ivhy,  as  though  living  in  the  tuorld,  are  ye  sub- 
ject to  ordinances  f  Col.  2:  10 — 20.  Believers,  passing  into  the  resurrec- 
tion, not  by  literal  death,  but  by  faith,  living  not  to  themselves,  but  to  him 
that  died  for  them  and  rose  again,  look  back  to  his  cross  as  the  monument 
of  their  transition  from  eai*th  to  heaven — see  the  ordinances  of  the  worldly 
sanctuary  nailed  to  it,  as  trophies  of  his  triumph — and  find  themselves  with 
him  in  the  freedom  befitting  a  heavenly  state. 

^  the  resurrection  of  Christ  released  men  from  sin,  which  is  the  sting  of 


y 


256  OUTLIJTE  OP  ALL  EXPERIENCE. 

death ;  and  from  the  law,  which  is  the  strength  of  sin,  it  manifestly  destroy- 
ed, in  respect  to  believers,  the  dominion  of  him  that  hath  the  power  of  death. 
Their  life  was  '  hid  with  Christ  in  God.'  They  had  'everlasting  life.'  That 
change  which  was  called  death  by  the  servants  of  sin,  was  to  them  the  con- 
summation of  their  resurrection.  These  remarks  cover  the  transition  period, 
from  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  till  his  second  coming.  During  that  period, 
the  promise  of  Christ — 'He  that  helieveth  on  me  shall  never  die"* — was  sub- 
stantially, though  not  literally  fulfilled.  The  saints  of  that  age,  though  they 
were  married  to  Christ  in  the  resurrection,  were  yet  so  far  within  the  terri- 
tories of  him  that  hath  the  power  of  death,  that  they  did  not  escape  the 
form^  though  they  were  saved  from  the  sting  of  dying.  Paul,  standing  in 
the  front  rank  of  the  host,  testified  that  he  had  not  yet  attairied  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead ;  (Phil.  3:  12 ;)  and  he  severely  condemned  some  who 
said  that  the  resurrection  was  past  already  ;  (2  Tim.  2:  18  ;)  yet  he  was 
striving  to  '  apprehend  that  for  which  he  was  apprehended  of  Christ,'  '  and 
looking  for  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ'  from  heaven,  to  change  his  vile  body. 
Phil.  3:  12 — 21.  He  also  assured  the  churches,  by  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
that  the  time  would  come,  and  that  speedily,  when  iha  power  o^  death  should 
be  abolished,  and  mortality  be  swallowed  up  of  life.  1  Cor.  15:  51,  &c. 
Death  was  the  last  enemy  that  should  be  overcome.  During  forty  years, 
the  power  that  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  was  revealed  in  believers,  redeem- 
ing them  from  sin  and  the  law,  sustaining  them  in  the  fellowship  of  Christ's 
sufferings,  advancing  them  from  one  victory  to  another,  till  at  the  end  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation  death  was  wholly  destroyed,  and  the  bride  of  Christ  was 
changed  into  the  likeness  of  his  glorious  body.  We  leave  it  to  the  leisure 
of  others  to  calculate  what  is  the  hope  of  the  calling  of  those  who  believe  on 
Christ  eighteen  hundred  years  after  his  perfect  victory  over  death — thanking 
'  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  according  to  his  abun- 
dant mercy  he  hath  begotten  us  unto  a  lively  hope,  by  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead.' 


§  86.  AN  OUTLINE  OF  ALL  EXPERIENCE. 

The  ultimate  causes  of  all  good  and  evil,  are  the  spirit  of  love,  and  the 
spirit  of  selfishness — God  and  the  devil.  Human  life  is  placed  under  the  poAver 
of  these  spirits,  and  in  all  stages  of  its  experience  is  either  subject  wholly  to 
one  or  to  the  other  of  them,  or  is  in  the  conflict  between  them. 

As  man  is  composed  of  body  and  soul,  his  life  is  of  a  twofold  quality,  an- 
imal and  spiritual.  We  call  his  animal  life,  the  flesh  or  the  outer  man  ;  and 
his  spiritual  fife,  the  spirit  or  the  inner  man.  The  flesh  is  the  natural  soil  of 
selfishness,  and  is  therefore  the  vantage-ground  of  the  devil.  The  spirit  is 
susceptible  of  divine  influences,  and  when  awakened,  appreciates  the  law  of 
love :  it  is  therefore  the  vantage-groimd  of  God. 


OUTLINE    OP   ALL   EXPERIENCE.  257 

The  flesh  and  the  spirit,  though  they  are  only  the  instruments  of  the  ulti- 
mate causes  of  good  and  evil,  are  the  immediate  actors  and  combatants  in 
all  human  experience ;  and  the  several  states  of  man  may  be  referred  to 
them,  as  the  representatives  of  God  and  the  devil.  We  may  say,  therefore, 
that  human  life,  in  all  stages  of  its  experience,  is  either  under  the  entire 
dominion  of  the  flesh,  or  of  the  spirit,  or  in  the  conflict  between  them. — 
This  is  equivalent  to  what  we  said  in  the  first  paragraph. 

In  the  7th  and  8th  chapters  of  Romans,  four  distinct,  successive  states 
of  human  life,  in  its  progress  from  evil  to  good,  are  brought  to  view,  namely : 

1.  The  natural  state,  in  which  the  flesh  reigns  undisturbed.  This  was 
Paul's  condition  when  he  was  '  alive  without  the  law.'  (7:  9.) 

2.  The  legal  state,  in  which  the  flesh  still  reigns,  but  is  engaged  in  con- 
flict with  the  spirit,  which  has  begun  to  delight  in  the  law  of  God.  This 
state  is  described  in  the  confession,  commencing  at — '  I  am  carnal,'  &c. 
(7:  7—25.) 

3.  The  justijled  state  ;  in  w^hich  the  spirit,  by  marriage  with  Christ,  has 
prevailed  over  the  flesh,  and  commenced  its  reign,  but  is  yet  in  the  mortal 
body,  and  thus  still  in  conflict  with  the  flesh.  This  is  described  in  the 
greater  part  of  the  8th  chapter,  as  the  then  present  state  of  Paul  and  the 
regenerate  part  of  the  primitive  church. 

4.  The  glorified  state  ;  in  which  the  spirit  has  completed  its  victory  over 
the  flesh  by  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  reigns  undisturbed.  This 
state  is  spoken  of  as  the  hope  of  the  saints,  in  the  8th  chapter,  from  the 
17th  to  the  25th  verses. 

These  four  states  may  be  presented  to  view  under  other  terms,  thus : — 

1.  The  flesh's  rest;  2,  The  flesh's  Contested  reign  over  the  spirit;  3, 
The  spirit's  contested  reign  over  the  flesh  ;    4,  The  spirit's  rest.     Or, 

1.  The  carnal ;  2,  The  legal-carnal ;  3,  The  mortal-spiritual ;  4,  The 
spiritual. 

If  we  divide  experience  in  the  usual  mor^  generic  way,  into  two  states,  the 
regenerate  and  the  unregenerate,  the  first  two  of  our  subdivisions  (viz.,  the 
carnal  and  the  legal-carnal)  belong  to  the  unregenerate  state  ;  and  the  last 
two  (viz.,  the  mortal-spiritual  and  the  spiritual)  to  the  regenerate. 

The  carnal  comprises  all  men  in  their  natural  state,  such  as  infants,  men 
without  revelation,  &c. 

The  legal-carnal  comprises  all  law-bound,  sinning  religionists,  such  as  were 
the  Jewish  saints  under  the  law,  the  disciples  while  Christ  was  in  the  flesh, 
the  novices  of  the  primitive  church,  and  the  pious  of  the  past  and  present 
'  Christian'  churches. 

The  mortal-spiritual  comprises  all  that  are  without  sin  in  this  world,  such 
as  was  Christ  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  and  the  apostles  and  primitive  believers 
after  the  gospel  was  opened  to  them. 

The  spiritual  comprises  those  who  have  conquered  death  and  attained  the 
glorified  body,  as  Christ  did  at  his  resurrection,  and  as  the  primitive  saints 
did  at  the  Second  Coming. 

In  the  present  state  of  things,  we  are  concerned  with  the  two  intermediate 
conflict-states,  more  immediately  than  with  the  rest-states,  at  the  two  extremes. 
o2t 


S5S  OUtLlJTE   Off  ALL   EXPERlEKCE. 

Yet  the  life  of  all  who  are  saved  passes  through  the  whole  four.  In  the  Ttfl 
and  8th  of  Romans,  Paul  carries  his  own  history  through  the  first  three,  and 
at  the  Second  Coining  he  entered  the  fourth.  Ilis  history  is  doubtkss,  in  lis 
general  features,  an  outline  of  the  history  of  all  the  redeemed.     . 

And  the  experience  of  hidividuals,  is  a  miniature  of  the  history  of  the 
human  race* 

From  the  advent  of  sin  till  the  advent  of  the  law,  it  may  be  said  in  general 
terms  that  the  flesh  reigned  undisturbed  ;  and  the  consec^uence  was  a  deluge 
of  iniquity,  and  finalty  a  deluge  of  destruction. 

From  the  advent  of  the  law  till  the  advent  of  Christy  the  flesh  reigned ; 
but  the  law  and  the  partial  divine  influences  accompanying  it,  stirred  the 
gpmts  of  men,  and  the  war  between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit  advanced,  not 
indeed  to  a  victory  of  the  spirit  over  the  flesh,  but  to  a  preparation  for  that 
victory. 

From  the  advent  of  Christ  till  the  present  time,  the  human  race,  viewed 
as  a  whole,  comprising  the  inner  and  the  outer  sphere  of  spirits,  has  been  in 
the  third  or  mortal-spiritual  state,  in  which  the  spirit  prevails,  though  the  flesh 
remains  and  continues  to  resist.  In  order  to  see  this,  we  must  not  look  on 
the  visible  world,  which  is  the  fleshly  portion  of  the  human  corporation,  and 
is  full  of  the  works  of  the  devil,  but  on  the  soid  of  that  corporation,  which  is 
Christ  and  the  saints  of  the  first  resurrection  ;  and  we  must  consider  that, 
when  Christ  ascended  up  on  high,  he  led  captivity  captive,  and  took  the  reins  of 
power  '  in  heaven  and  on  eartN- — that  the  saints  who  joined  him  at  the  Second 
Coming,  have  '  lived  and  reigned  with  him  on  the  eartli^^- — and  that  the  time 
past  of  Christendom  has  been  the  time  of  his  and  their  actual  kingdom,  though 
they  have  only  '  ruled  with  a  rod  of  iron,'  so  far  as  this  world  is  concerned. 
In  this  comprehensive  view,  it  may  be  seen  that  Christ  '  made  an  end  of  sin" 
in  the  human  race,  when  he  established  himself  at  its  centre  ;  for  he  changed 
the  general  balance  of  powers,  and  gave  the  spirit,  as  a  whole,  the  victory 
over  the  flesh  as  a  whole  ;  so  that'j  in  a  certain  sense,  it  may  be  said,  that  the 
whole  race  was  born  of  God,  when  the  Son  of  God  entered  into  it,  though ^ 
until  '  all  things  are  put  under  him,'  the  flesh  remains  and  wars  against  the 
spirit,  and  '  the  adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemption  of  the  body'  is  future. 

We  have  passed,  then,  as  a  race,  the  first  and  second  stages  of  experience, 
and  are  drawing  toward  the  conclusion  of  the  third.  The  fourth  stage  is  that 
which  is  before  us.  The  contested  reign  of  the  spirit  is  to  end  in  the  spirit's 
rest.  The  inner  man  of  the  race,  which  for  eighteen  hundred  years  has 
wrestled  with  the  powers  of  sin  in  the  outer  man,  and  has  prevailed,  is  to 
assume  its  glorious  body,  and  be  released  from  the  strife  between  flesh  and 
spirit. 

When  we  say  that  the  life  of  all  men  passes  through  the  four  stages  which 
Lave  been  described,  it  must  be  observed  that  Christ  is  excepted.  He  was 
without  sin,  and  of  course,  he  entered  into  the  last  two  stages  only,  viz.,  the 
Xnortal'Spiritual  and  the  spiritual,  in  which  the  spirit  prevails  over  the  flesh. 
Accordingly,  he  did  not  join  himself  to  humanity  till  the  first  two  stages,  viz., 
the  carnal  and  legal-carnal,  were  past,  or  at  least  so  far  past  that  all  was  in 
readiness  for  him  to  fight  the  decisive  battle  with  the  flesh,  and  commence  the 


THE    WAY   INTO   THE   HOLIEST,  259 

victory  of  tlie  spirit.  And  on  this  ground,  we  may  be  sure  tliat  what  we  havo 
said  concerning  the  victory  of  the  spirit  over  the  flesh  in  the  race,  as  a  whole, 
during  the  last  eighteen  hundred  years,  is  true  ;  for  the  fact  that  Christ  did 
not  come  in  the  flesh  till  the  natural  and  the  legal  states  were  past,  indicates 
(as  also  docs  right  reason)  that  he,  being  holy,  could  not  be  spiritually  iden- 
tified with  man  while  the  flesh  prevailed,  and  of  course,  that  since  he  has 
become  spiritually  identified  with  man,  the  spirit  has  prevailed.  He  did  not 
join  humanity  in  its  subjection  to  sin,  but,  at  his  entrance,  made  an  end  of 
sin,  and  took  part  with  humanity  only  in  the  conflicts  of  its  mortal-spiritual 
state,  which  conflicts  are  consistent  mth  perfect  holiness. 

This  observation  of  the  point  in  experience  where  Christ  entered  into  the 
race  as  a  whole,  will  throw  light  on  the  question  as  to  the  point  w^here  he  joins 
himself  to  individuals.  If  he  could  not  incarnate  himself  in  the  race  till  he 
could  make  an  end  of  its  shi3,  for  the  same  reason  he  cannot  enter  into  indi- 
viduals, till  they  have  passed  the  natural  and  legal  stages  of  experience,  and 
are  ready  for  the  victory  of  the  spirit  over  the  flesh.  No  man,  remaining  a 
sinner,  can  truly  testify  that  he  is  in  spiritual  partnership  with  Christ.  '  He 
that  sinneth  hath  not  seen  him,  neither  known  him.' 

The  four  stages  of  experience  may  be  described  with  reference  to  the  in- 
visible powers  to  whose  administration  they  respectively  belong,  thus : 

1.  The  natural  state  is  under  the  deviVs  administration. 

2.  The  legal  state  is  under  the  administration  o^  angels.  (See  Acts  7:  53, 
Gal.  3:  19,  Heb.  2:  2.) 

3.  The  mortal-spiritual  state  is  under  the  administration  of  the  Son, 

4.  The  spiritual  or  glorified  state  is  under  the  administration  of  the  Father » 
(See  1  Cor.  15;  24—28.) 


§  37.     THE  WAY  INTO  THE  HOLIEST, 

"  Having  therefore,  brethren,  boldness  to  enter  into  the  holiest  by  the  blood 
of  Jesus,  by  a  new  and  Hving  way  which  he  hath  consecrated  for  us  through 
the  veil,  that  is  to  say,  his  flesh  ;  and  having  an  high  priest  over  the  house  of 
God  ;  let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in  full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure 
water."   Heb.  10:  19—22. 

O^E  of  the  clearest  marks  of  the  apostasy  of  Christendom  from  primitive 
Christianity,  is  the  ignorance  which  prevails  in  relation  to  the  enlargement 
of  spiritual  privileges  which  was  introduced  by  the  new  covenant  dispensa- 
tion. The  popular  teachers  of  rehgion  abound  in  general  glorifications  of 
Christ  and  the  blessings  which  he  brought  to  the  world ;  but  when  we  inquire 
into  the  particulars,  for  which  they  extol  his  dispensation,  we  find  that  they 
have  no  idea  that  Christianity  gives  men  nearer  access  to  God  than  Judaism 
did.  In  their  minds  spiritual  privileges  have  stood  on  the  same  general  level 
in  all  ages  of  the  world.    They  think  that  man  had  the  same  opportunities 


260  THE   WAY   INTO   THE   HOLIEST. 

of  approaching  God  before  Christ  came,  as  afterward ;  that  regeneration 
was  a  privilege  of  Judaism  as  well  as  of  Christianity,  and  that  men  can  no 
more  be  saved  from  sin  under  Christianity  than  they  could  under  Judaism. 
Hence  when  the  doctrine  of  holiness  is  presented  to  them,  they  see  no  im- 
propriety in  citing  against  it  from  the  Old  Testament  such  passages  as  these  : 
'  There  'is  no  man  that  hveth  and  sinneth  not ;'  '  There  is  not  a  just  man 
upon  earth,  that  doeth  good  and  sinneth  not ;'  as  though  all  that  was  true  in 
Solomon's  time,  of  human  sinfulness  and  of  the  meagerness  of  God's  pro- 
vision for  curing  it,  must  be  true  now,  after  the  Son  of  God  has  come  and 
estabhshed  his  kingdom  of  grace  in  the  world. 

The  popular  commentators  have  indeed  found  it  impossible  to  handle  such 
passages  as  that  from  which  the  verses  at  the  head  of  this  article  are  taken, 
(viz.  Heb.  8,  9  and  10,)  without  making  some  flourish  of  words  about  the 
new  privileges  opened  by  the  advent  of  Christ.  But  when  their  comments 
are  scanned  down,  they  amount  to  nothing  more  than  an  admission  that  since 
Christ  came  men  may  understand  more  fully  liow  they  have  access  to  God 
than  they  could  before,  and  that  the  privilege  of  such  access  is  extended  to 
a  greater  number.  Their  idea  is  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  as  effectual 
before  it  w^as  offered  as  afterward  ;  and  that  the  only  advantage  we  have  over 
the  Old  Testament  saints  is  that  w^e  may  Jmoio  a  little  more  of  the  philosophy 
of  salvation  than  they  could, — not  that  any  new  way  of  access  to  God  is 
opened,  or  any  new  salvation  made  accessible. 

Adam  Clarke  remarks  on  Matthev,r  27:  51,  as  follows  : 
"  The  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent.  That  i?,  the  veil  which  separated  the  holy 
"place  where  the  priests  ministered,  from  the  holy  of  holies,  into  which  the  high 
priest  only  entered,  and  that  once  a  year,  to  make  a  general  expiation  for  the 
sins  of  the  people.  This  rending  of  the  veil  was  emblematical,  and  pointed  out 
that  the  separation  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  was  now  abolished,  and  that  the 
privilege  of  the  high  priest  was  now  communicated  to  all  mankind  :  all  might 
henceforth  have  access  to  the  throne  of  grace,  through  the  one  great  atonement 
and  mediator,  the  Lord  Jesus.  See  this  beautifully  illustrated  in  Heb.  10:  19-22.'"' 

This  is  certainly  a  curious  specimen,  but  probably  a  fair  one,  of  the  wisdom 
of  our  modern  scribes.  We  learn  from  it  that  the  veil  between  the  first  tab- 
ernacle and  the  holy  of  holies,  merely  represented  the  separation  between  the 
Jews  and  the  Gentiles  ! — of  course  that  the  Jews  had  access  to  the  holy  of 
hohes  before  Christ's  death;  and  that  the  privileges  of  the  Gentiles  only  were 
enlarged  by  that  sacrifice  !  The  Jews,  according  to  this  representation,  had 
the  privilege  of  entering  the  inner  sanctuary,  not  only  side  by  side  with  the 
great  high  priest  of  tlie  Christian  dispensation,  but  long  before  he  entered  it ! 
Clarke,  it  will  be  observed,  refers  to  Heb.  10:  19 — 22,  as  an  illustration  of 
his  interpretation  of  Matt.  27:  51.  Of  course  he  transfers  his  view  of  the 
one  text  to  the  other.  .The  invitation  to  enter  the  holiest,  in  Heb.  10:  19, 
&c.,  thus  becomes  an  invitation  to  a  privilege,  not  new  to  the  Jews,  but  only 
to  the  Gentiles.  It  is  difficult,  on  this  supposition,  to  see  why  that  invitation 
was  addressed  to  the  '  Hebrews.* 

The  truth  is  that  there  is  not  a  word  in  the  book  of  Hebrew^s  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  separation  between  the  Jews  and  Gentiles — no  intimation  that  the 


THE   WAY   INTO   THE   HOLIEST.  261 

rending  of  the  veil  of  the  sanctuary  was  an  emblem  of  the  abohshment  of  that 
separation.  On  the  contrary,  the  ninth  chapter  of  that  book  very  clearly 
teaches  that  the  holy  of  holies  was  an  emblem  of  the 'immediate  presence  of 
God,  into  which  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile  had  been  admitted,  until  Christ 
came  and  made  reconciUation  ;  and  of  course  that  the  rending  of  the  veil  at 
the  death  of  Christ,  was  an  emblem  of  the  abolishment  of  the  separation,  not 
between  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  but  between  God  and  man.  After  descri- 
bing the  arrangements  of  the  firstt  abernacle  and  the  holy  of  holies,  Paul  says  : 
"  Now  when  these  things  were  thus  ordained,  the  priests  went  always  into  the 
first  tabernacle,  accomplishing  the  service  of  God.  But  into  the  second  went 
the  high  priest  alone  once  every  year,  not  without  blood,  which  he  oftered  for 
himself,  and  for  the  errors  of  the  people  :  the  Holy  Ghost  this  signifying,  That 
the  way  into  the  holiest  of  all  was  not  yet  made  manifest,  while  as  the  first  taber- 
nacle was  yet  standing :  which  was  a  figure  for  the  time  then  present,  in  which 
were  offered  both  gifts  and  sacrifices^  that  could  not  mak«i  him  that  did  the  service 
perfect,  as  pertaining  to  the  conscience  ;  which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks, 
and  divers  washings  and  carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on  them  until  the  time  of 
reformation.  But  Christ  being  corrie'^  a:P  high  priest  of  good  things  to  come,  by 
a  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacl^,,  not  made  with  hands,  that  is  to  say,  not 
of  this  building,  neither  by  the  blood  of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  his  own  blood, 
he  entered  in  once  into  the  hol}'^  place,  having  obtained  eternal  redemption  for 
us."  Heb.  9:   6—12. 

This  is  certainly  'a  vei*y'];^Mn  announcement  that  the  way  into  the  holiest 
•was  not  made  manifest  to^  any  body — Jew  or  Gentile — before  the  coming  of 
Christ.  He  first  tind  alone  entered  within  the  veil  of  the  Godhead,  at  the 
end  of  the  aioiiy'  as  the  Jewish  high  priest  entered  the  inner  tabernacle  at  the 
end  of  the  j4^h\  Man  had  held  intercourse  with  God  before,  only  in  that  dis- 
tant mamifer''whicli  was  symbolized  by  the  service  of  the  first  tabernacle. 
Christ  led  the  way  into  that  nearer  communion  with  the  divine  nature  which 
was  symbolized  by  the  approach  to  the  holy  of  holies. 

]5^t;h.ow  docs  the  fact  that  Christ  has  entered  the  sanctuary  authorise  the 
apostle,  to  invite  others  to  enter  ?  How  can  we  '  have  boldness  to  enter  the 
holiest?  In  the  Jewish  service  the  high  priest  alone  entered  within  the  veil. 
The  people  stood  without.  How  then  can  any  but  the  great  High  Priest  of 
the  Christian  dispensation  draw  near  to  God  in  his  unveiled  glory  ?  We  shall 
find  Mn  answer  to  these  questions  by  considering  the  force  of  the  expression 
>  — 'fyif  the  blood  of  Jesus.''  We  have  boldness  to  enter  the  holiest  ojiJaj  '  by 
the  blood  of  Jesus.'  What  is  that  blood,  and  how  is  it  applied  so  as  to  give 
belie- vers  boldness  to  approach  God  ? 

The  reader  will  find  a  full  discussion  of  the  nature  and  application  of  the 
'  bli)odof  Christ,'  in  a  previous  article  on  the  New  Covenant,  pp.  1^ — 148. 
In  addition  to  what  is  there  said,  we  may  remark  here,  that  if  the  blood  of 
Christ's  visible  body  were  the  true  '  blood  of  the  covenant,'  the  blood  of  the 
sac  rifices  under  the  law,  and  the  wine  of  the  eucharist,  would  be  types  of  a 
su.bstance  on  the  same  level  with  themselves, — type  and  antitype  would  both 
be  material  and  visible  ;  which  would  be  wholly  incongruous  vv'ith  the  general 
fi>ystem  of  typical  representation.  And  then,  if  the  blood  of  the  covenant 
Vere  material,  how  could  it  be  spinlded  on  the  people  interested  in  it,  liv- 


262  THE  WAY  INTO  THE  HOLIEST. 

ing  as  they  do  through  long  tracts  of  time  ?  The  blood  of  the  typical  offer- 
ings was  Hterally  sprinkled  on  the  congregation  ;  and  for  this  purpose  those 
offerings  ^yere  repeated  from  year  to  year.  But  Christ  suffered  but  once. 
How  is  it  possible  that  his  material  blood  should  be  sprinkled  on  men  at  this 
distance  of  time  ?  It  would  be  incongruous  to  suppose  that  while  the  blood 
was  literal,  the  sprinkling  is  figurative  or  spiritual,  i.  e.,  is  performed  by 
preaching  or  spiritual  influence.  In  the  type,  the  blood  was  literal  and  the 
sprinkling  was  literal.  So  in  the  antitype,  if  the  blood  is  literal  the  sprink- 
ling ought  to  be  literal ;  or  if  the  sprinkling  is  spiritual  the  blood  must  be 
spiritual. 

When  we  turn  to  the  true  theory,  (viz.  that  the  blood  of  Christ  is  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost,)  all  becomes  plain  and  consistent.  We  can  understand  how  our 
great  High  Priest,  when  he  entered  the  sanctuary,  sprinkled  the  world  with 
his  own  blood.  The  day  of  Pentecost  witnessed  the  glorious  baptism.  We 
can  understand  how  it  can  be  said  that  behevers  have  come  to  the  blood  of 
sprinlding  that  speaketh  better  things  than  the  blood  of  Abel,  (Ileb.  12: 
24,)  and  how  that  blood  can  '  cleanse  them  from  all  sin'  and  '  make  them 
perfect.' 

it  will  now  be  seen  how  we  have  '  boldness  to  enter  into  the  holiest.'  We 
have  come  to  an  omnipresent  and  ever-pouring  sprinkhng  of  the  blood  of  Je- 
sus ;  and  by  drinking  in  that  blood,  and  realizing  its  purging  power,  we  may 
be  made  free  from  sin,  and  so  fitted  for  the  presence  of  God.  The  apostle 
invites  behevers  to  come,  not  in  the  filth  of  sin,  but  'having  tJieir  hearts 
sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience.''  By  drinking  the  blood  of  Christ,  we 
become  one  with  him,  members  of  his  body  ;  self  dies,  and  Christ  is  put  on  ; 
so  that  although  none  but  the  High  Priest  is  permitted  to  go  within  the  veil, 
we  may  enter  boldly,  because  ive  are  identified  with  the  High  ^Priest,  His 
life  has  admittance  to  the  holy  of  holies  ;  and  his  life  is  ours. 

In  this  discussion  we  have  brought  to  view  the  ground  on  whicli.  ti^ie  Per- 
fectionism stands,  and  the  issue  between  that  system  and  the  rehgfon  ot^the 
/estabhshed  churches.  The  popular  theologians  teach,  expressly  or  bj  impli- 
cation, that  the  atonement  opened  no  way  into  holiness  and  the  preso^nce  ot 
God  which  was  unknown  before  ;  and  of  course  that  the  rehgious  expe^i^^c 
which  is  appropriate  to  the  Christian  dispensation,  is  not  essentially  difl^^i'ent 
from  that  which  was  enjoyed  under  the  Jewish  economy.  Their- -do<?trine 
makes  regeneration  the  privilege,  and  sin  the  accompanying  draw-feck, 
equally  of  both  dispensations.  On  the  other  hand,  we  teach  that  the  jitone- 
ment  brought  upon  the  world  a  baptism  of  sin-abolishing  blood,  and  rent  the 
veil  which  had  previously  separated  between  God  and  man;  so  that;  an  !  ex- 
perience of  salvation  from  sin,  and  communion  with  the  divine  nature,  is  now 
attainable,  as  much  higher  than  any  enjoyed  under  the  Jewish  dispensation 
as  the  holy  of  holies  was  more  sacred  than  the  enclosure  from  which  it  was 
veiled.  Our  doctrine  restricts  the  privilege  of  regeneration  to  the  turtles 
after  the  atonement,  and  to  the  faith  ot  those  who  enter  the  inner  sanctuary; 
and  limits  sinful  rehgion  to  the  service  of  the  outer  tabernacle.  These- tvre 
the  theses  on  the  one  side  and  the  other,  which  are  about  to  be  tried  before 
heaven  and  earth. 


^  38.     CHRISTIAN  FAITH. 

'  He  that  cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  re* 
Vrarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him.'  Every  form  of  faith,  without 
which  it  is  impossible  to  please  God,  necessarily  contains  these  two  elements, 
viz :  first,  a  belief  of  the  existence  of  God  ;  second,  a  belief  of  his  benev- 
olence, and  of  course  an  expectation  of  a  reward  in  seeking  him.  The  man 
who  has  never  sought  after  God,  may  exercise  faith,  thus  elementarily  de- 
scribed ;  and  indeed,  in  the  order  of  nature,  such  faith  must  precede  all 
attempts  to  secure  the  favor  of  God.  I  cannot  seek  access  to  a  man,  of  whose 
existence  I  am  ignorant j  and  I  shall  not  seek  favors  from  one,  unless  I  be- 
lieve he  has  the  power,  and  will,  to  do  me  good.  Between  this  starting  point 
in  the  race  of  faith,  and  the  goal  which  they  have  reached,  to  w4iom  God 
has  become  all  in  all,  we  may  discover  and  describe  endless  varieties  and 
degrees  of  confidence  in  God.  If  I  believe  to  day  in  the  existence  of  a  God 
whose  locality  is  above  the  firmament,  and  to-morrow  discover  that  he  is  an 
omnipresent  God,  I  have  advanced  a  step  in  the  course  of  faith.  Again  ;  if 
I  believe  to-day  only  the  general  proposition,  that  the  omnipresent  God  is  a 
re  warder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him,  and  tomorrow  discover  that  he 
actually  answers  my  prayers,  I  have  advanced  another  step.  If  I  sincerely 
and  diligently  seek  after  God  my  faith  will  increase  as  my  knowledge  of  him 
increases.  Discovering  his  care  over  me,  I  trust  his  providence  for  temporal 
blessings— perceiving  the  power  of  his  spirit,  and  the  holiness  of  his  charac* 
ter,  I  trust  him  to  keep  me  from  the  ways  of  wicked  men.  Finding  that  in 
his  presQuce  is  fulness  of  joy,  I  trust  his  love  will  one  day  deliver  me  from 
the  bondage  and  darkness  of  a  sinful  nature,  and  fit  me  for  full  and  endless 
fellowship  with  himself.  As  God  reveals  his  good  will  and  power  to  me,  my 
faith  advances  from  one  blessing  to  another,  till  that  righteousness  which  alone 
can  qualify  me  for  the  enjoyment  of  his  glorious  presence,  becomes  the  object 
of  my  heart's  desire  ;  and  trusting  in  him,  I  see  a  cloudless  prospect  of  eter* 
nal  deliverance  from  sin  in  a  future  w^orld. 

Thus  far  faith  advanced  under'the  Jewish  dispensation.  Thus  far,  before 
Christ  came,  God  had  revealed  himself  as  the  rewarder  of  them  that  dili* 
gently  seek  him.  Abraham  received  not  the  promise  of  the  new  covenant^ 
but  saw  it  afar  off,  and  rejoiced  ;  and  all  who  followed  in  his  footsteps  before 
the  advent  of  Christ,  though  they  '  obtained  a  good  report  through  faith, 
received  not  the  promise,'  but  stood  with  him  rejoicing  in  the  hope  of  eter* 
nal  righteousness.  The  effect  of  faith  in  this  stage  of  its  advancement, 
upon  the  character  and  conduct,  may  easily  be  seen.  As  faith  is  necessarily 
limited  by  the  revelation  which  God  makes  of  himself,  if  Abraham  diligently 
Bought  after  God — if  his  faith  kept  pace  with  his  discoveries  of  the  good  will 
of  God, — he  w^as  '  perfect'  in  his  day  :  not  perfect,  as  being  conformed  to 
the  image  of  God,  but  perfect  as  being  conformed  to  his  imperfect  discoveries 
of  God.  The  carnal  mind — the  will  of  the  flesh — is  enmity  against  God. 
Brutes  have  the  carnal  mind,  and  yet  they  are  not  sinners.   Why?    Because 


264  CHRISTIAN    FAITH. 

they  have  no  knowledge  of  God.  They  are  perfect  m  their  place,  not  as 
bemg  conformed  to  the  image  of  God,  but  as  fulfilling  the  end  of  their  being. 
On  the  same  principle,  Abraham  might  be  perfect  in  his  place,  without  that 
knowledge  of  God  Avhich  displaces  the  carnal  mind.  It  is  manifest,  however, 
that  his  perfection  can  be  no  standard  by  which  the  perfection  of  those  to 
whom  God  has  farther  revealed  himself,  shall  be  measured.  The  legitimate 
effect  of  perfect  faith  in  the  imperfect  revelations  which  God  made  to  man 
during  the  Jewish  dispensation,  was  to  stimulate  believers  to  the  performance 
of  the  works  of  the  law.  In  observing  the  statutes  and  ordinances  of  the 
law,  they  did  the  work  of  servants,  because,  in  so  doing,  they  trusted  God 
would  ultimately  make  them  his  sons.  If  it  be  true,  as  many  seem  to  sup- 
pose, that  God  has  made  no  greater  revelation  of  himself  to  the  world  than 
was  given  to  Abraham  and  the  Jewish  saints,  we  may  call  ourselves  believ- 
ers, w4iile  we  rest  contented  to  stand  with  them  as  servants  under  the  law^, 
in  liope,  not  in  possession  of  righteousness.  But  if  Jesus  Christ  has  revealed 
the  Father,  and  this  revelation  is  w^orthy  to  be  called  the  glorious  gospel, 
before  we  call  ourselves  Christian  believers,  w-e  must  inquire.  What  is  the 
gospel  ? — and  whether  our  faith  corresponds  to  the  tidings  it  brings. 

The  following  passages  from  the  Avord  of  God  explicitly  state  the  object  for 
which  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world  :  '  Thou  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus,  for 
he  shall  save  his  jjeople  fr 0771  their  sins.^  Matt.  1:  21.  '  He  w^as  manifested 
to  take  aumy  our  sins,^  1  John  3:  5.  '  For  this  purpose  was  the  Son  of  God 
manifested,  that  he  might  destroy  the  tcorJcs  of  the  devil.''  1  John  3:  8.  If 
this  is  the  gospel,  sinners  are  not  Christian  behevers  ;  for  the  faith  which 
corresponds  to  this  revelation  of  the  good-will  of  God,  must.be  inconsistent 
with  the  commission  of  sin.  If  God  sent  his  Son  into  the  world  for  the  pur- 
pose of  saving  his  people  from  their  sins,  they  who  trust  him  are  saved  from 
their  sins,  or  God  is  defeated  in  his  purpose. 

What  then  is  the  nature  of  Christian  faith  ?  How  shall  a  man  who  be- 
lieves that  God  is,  and  is  a  rew^arder  of  them  that  dihgently  seek  him,  become 
a  behever  of  that  gospel  which  brings  salvation  from  sin  ?  We  will  endeavor 
to  trace  the  transition.  « 

Suppose  the  man  stands  in  the  situation  of  a  Jewish  believer,  a  smner, 
under  the  law,  but  rejoicing  in  the  hope  of  righteousness  and  fellowship  with 
God  in  a  future  w^orld.  He  hears  that  God  sent  his  Son  into  the  world  to 
save  all  who  trust  in  him,  from  their  sins.  This  is  glad  tidings  to  him,  and 
lie  wilUngly  believes  it,  because  it  brings  that  salvation  to  his  door  which  he 
had  hitherto  supposed  afar  off.  Difficulties  and  objections  are  easily  removed 
from  the  mind  of  one  wdio  hungers  and  thirsts  after  righteousness.  Suppose 
then  his  mind  has  settled  into  a  conviction  that  the  glad  tidings  he  has  heard 
are  true.  Though -he  is  not  in  possession  of  the  salvation  of  which  he  has 
heard,  he  has  advanced  in  faith  a  step  beyond  the  state  of  a  Jewish  behever. 
He  has  discovered  that  the  feast  which  he  before  looked  for  at  the  end  of  a 
life  of  labor,  is  ready  for  him  now.  He  withdraws  his  thoughts  from  that 
prospect  beyond  the  grave,  w^hich  had  cheered  him,  ceases  from  his  labor, 
and  sets  himself  to  find  his  Father's  table. 

The  question  before  him  now  is — How  am  I  to  be  saved  from  sm  ?    The 


CHRISTIAN   FAITH.  265 

gospel  aniswers — hy  the  'power  of  G-od.  *  But  can  this  be  done  consistently 
with  my  free  agency  V  Ans.  If  God  could  dwell  in  Jesus  Christ,  control- 
ling all  his  actions,  yet  leaving  him  a  free  agent,  he  can  do  the  same  in  any 
other  human  being,  to  whom  he  can  gain  access.  You  know  by  experience, 
that  he  can  in  some  measure,  at  least,  manage  your  spirit,  and  dispose  you 
to  righteousness,  without  interfering  with  your  free  agency — why  cannot  his 
control  over  you  be  perfected  consistently  with  your  freedom  ?  •  Moreover 
you  expect  to  be  kept  by  his  power  in  eternal  righteousness  after  death,  and 
yet  to  be  free — Why  should  you  doubt  his  power  to  begin  this  work  before 
death  ?  Suppose  the  inquirer  to  be  convinced  that  God  can  dwell  in  him  as 
he  did  in  Christ,  and  save  him  from  sin,  leaving  him  free — a  second  step  is 
taken  towards  the  possession  of  a  perfect  salvation. 

The  next  question  is — '  How  shaU  I  become  the  subject  of  that  power  of 
God  which  brings  salvation  ?  The  gospel  answers,  hy  faith  in  his  Son. — 
'  What  is  faith  in  the  Son  of  God  ?'  Ans.  It  is  a  conviction,  accompanied 
with  a  confession  that  Christ  is  in  you,  a  whole  Savior.  Unbelief  replies — 
*  Christ  is  not  in  me.' 

Here  is  the  critical  spot  where  the  contest  between  the  devil  and  the  Son 
of  God  is  to  be  decided ;  and  here  we  resort  to  the  record  which  God  has  giv- 
en of  his  Son.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  word  of  God  must  stand,  if  it 
contradicts  your  previous  conceptions  and  feelings.  If  it  declares  that  Christ 
is  in  you,  your  ignorance  and  unbelief  of  the  fact  cannot  prove  this  declara- 
tion false.  On  the  contrary  it  may  be  proved  that  your  ignorance  and  un- 
behef  have  crucified  the  Son  of  God  in  you,  and  that  he  only  waits  for  the 
permission  of  your  faith,  to  burst  the  tomb  of  your  heart  and  manifest  his 
presence.  We  will  not  speculate  upon  the  question  of  the  possibility  of 
Christ's  presence  in  those  who  are  ignorant  of  the  fact.  You  cannot  dive  deep 
enough  into  spiritual  philosophy  to  prove  it  impossible,  and  I  cannot  dive 
deep  enough  to  show  you  how  it  is  true;  but  we  can  both  read  the  plain  state- 
ments of  the  word  of  God.  John  says  of  Christ— the  Word  of  God — '  In 
him  was  life,  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men  ;  and  the  light  shineth  in 
darkness^  and  the  darkness  comprrehendeth  it  not.  That  was  the  true  light 
which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world.  He  was  in  the  world, 
and  the  world  was  made  by  him,  and  the  world  knew  him  not.^  John  1:  4 — 
10.  From  this  passage  it  appears  that  the  life  of  the  Word  of  God,  hght- 
eth  every  human  being.  It  will  not  be  pretended  that  the  gospel — the  ex- 
ternal light  of  the  word  of  God — ^lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world.  What  meaning  then  can  be  attached  to  the  passage,  unless  we  be- 
lieve that  the  Son  of  God,  in  becoming  incarnate,  gave  life  to  all  flesh,  'came 
a  hght  into  the  tvorld^  of  darkened  spirits,  so  that  he  is  actually  life  and  light 
to  those  who  know  him  not.  '  The  light  shineth  in  darkness,  and  the  dark- 
ness comprehendeth  it  not.'  Shall  the  darkness  therefore  deny  that  the  light 
shines  ?  '  The  world  knew  him  not.'  Shall  the  world  therefore  deny  that 
he  has  come  into  the  world.  You  have  hitherto  been  ignorant  of  the  fact 
that  Christ  is  life  and  light  in  you — shall  you  therefore  deny  the  fact,  in  con- 
tradiction of  the  testimony  of  God  ? 

The  following  passage  more  fully  unfolds  the  meaniBg  of  those  we  have  al- 

00 


^0  .  CnElSTIAN    FAITtl. 

ready  examined.  *  Tliere  are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth,  the  spirit^ 
and  the  water,  and  the  blood :  and  these  three  agree  in  one.  If  we  receive 
the  witness  of  men,  the  witness  of  God  is  greater :  for  this  is  the  witness  of 
God  which  he  hath  testified  of  his  Son.  He  that  belie veth  on  the  Son  of 
God  hath  the  witness  in  himself :  he  that  believeth  not  God,  hath  made  him 
a  liar ;  because  he  beheveth  not  the  record  that  God  gave  of  his  Son.  And 
this  ♦is  the  record,  that  Gtodhatli  given  to  us  eternal  life:  and  this  life  is  in 
his  Son.'  1  Jno.  5:  8 — 11.  There  are  three  agents,  or  elements  of  salvation 
in  the  spiritual' worlds  corresponding  to  spirit,  (or  air,)  water,  and  blood,  in 
the  natural  world.  Water  is  that  which  cleanses  the  outside,  (see  John  15: 
8,  Eph.  5:  26,)  to  which  the  external  word  corresponds.  '  Blood  is  the  life' 
' — the  vital  element  of  the  inward  man.  So  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
life  of  the  soul.  The  spirit  or  air  is  the  medium  in  which,  and  by  which  the 
blood  and  water  have  their  action,  and  without  which  the  blood  would  be  use- 
less. So  the  witnessing  Spirit  of  God  is  that  without  which  the  blood  and 
water  of  Jesus  Christ,  i.  e.  his  spiritual  life  and  instructions,  are  of  no  avail. 
*  He  that  helieyeth  hath  the  witness'  of  the  Spirit.  '  He  that  beheveth  not^ 
hath  the  Uood,  i.  e.  that  Hfe  which  is  hght  shining  in  darkness,  and  perhaps 
the  water,  i.  e.  the  word :  but  these  are  of  no  avail  without  that  faith  which 
admits  the  witness  of  the  Spirit.  The  life  of  Christ  is  not  comprehended,  till 
the  Spirit  bears  witness*  'He  that  believeth  not  hath  made  God  a  liar ;  be- 
cause he  hath  not  believed  the  record  that  God  gave  of  his  Son :  and  tliis  is 
the  record,  that  Crodhath  given  to  us  eternal  life;  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son.' 
The  life  then  of  the  Son  of  God  is  actually  and  unconditionally  given  to  ev^ry 
man  lefore  believing— -else  how  can  unbeHef  in  respect  to  this  record  make 
God  a  har  ?  If  God  has  given  eternal  life  only  to  them  that  believe,  unbe- 
lievers can  not  be  required  to  believe  that  God  has  given  them  eternal  life,  for 
this  is  not  true.  Yet  it  is  plainly  declared  that  unbehevers  make  God  a  liar 
in  respect  to  *  the  record  that  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life*'  These  dec^ 
larations  can  in  no  way  be  reconciled  with  each  other,  unless  we  believe  that 
the  '  eternal  life,'  i.  e.  the  Son  of  God,  (see  1  John  1:  2,  5:  20,)  '  is  the 
light  shining  in  darkness' — '  that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
worlds'  Thus  believing,  the  method  of  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ  is  a  plain 
matter.  1.  Every  man,  by  the  gift  of  God,  has  eternal  life  present  in  his 
Bpirit,  though  he  be  ignorant  of  the  fact.  2.  God  sends  forth  the  word  of  his 
gospel  to  apprize  men  of  this  fact.  3.  He  that  believeth  this  word  receives 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  is  born  of  God.  1,  The  blood  is  given  ;  2,  the  water; 
3,  the  spirit.  Thus  God  is  the  Savior  of  all  men,  specially  of  them  that 
believe. 

Again — '  As  by  the  offense  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condem- 
nation ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men 
unto  justification  of  life.*  Eom.  5:  18.  A  comparison  is  here  instituted  be- 
tween Adam  and  Christ,  in  which  the  operation  of  the  righteousness  of  the 
Second  Adam  is  represented  as  reversing  the  work  of  the  first.  By  the  first 
Adam  all  men  become  partakers  of  a  fallen  nature,  which  is  nevertheless  not 
in  itjelf  sinful,  inasmuch  as  Christ  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  it,  and  was 
yet  without  sin ;  thus  proving  the  poasibility  of  living  in  human  nature  with- 


CHEKTMAN    FAITH.  267 

out  sin,  and  thereby  condemning  sin  in  the  flesh,  ^  By  on^  man  sin  entered 
the  world,  and  death  by  sin  ;  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men, /or  that  all 
have  sinned.'*  In  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  all  men  become  partakers  of  a 
nature  not  necessarily  sinful,  but  uniformly  prone  to  sin.  Each  man,  hy  his 
own  sin,  secures  to  himself  the  appropriate  curse  of  a  sinful  nature.  By  re» 
versing  this  statement  we  ascertain  the  nature  of  the  work  of  Christ.  He  is 
the  second  Adam,  the  root  of  the  race.  By  him  all  men  are  placed  in  com- 
munication with  a  nature,  not  in  itself  righteous  in  th^m,  but  adapted  to  the 
fulfilment  of  righteousness.  Each  man,  by  his  own  act,  i.  e.  by  faith,  secure^ 
to  himself  the  appropriate  blessings  of  a  righteous  nature.  The  gospel  an- 
nounces to  them  who,  by  sin,  are  following  the  first  Adani  to  death,  that  God 
has  given  them  through  Christ  a  new  nature,  the  appropriate  fruits  of  which 
are  righteousness  and  peace.  Unbelievers  continue  to  follow  the  firet  Adam. 
Behevers  '  put  off  the  old  man,  and  put  on  the  new  man'—*  walk  not  after 
the  flesh  but  after  the  spirit'— are  saved  from  their  sins.  As  there  are  now 
two  Adams,  so  all  men  have  two  natures— the  one  carnal  and  the  other  spir- 
itual ;  and  these  are  opposite  one  to  the  other.  While  the  old  man  hves,  the 
new  man  is  crucified.  When  the  new  man  lives,  the  old  man  is  crucified. 
The  old  man  lives  by  unbeHef — the  new  man  by  faith.  By  the  gospel  we  are 
made  to  know  that  God  has  repaired  the  ruins  of  the  fall,  and  '  we  are  no 
longer  debtors  to  the  flesh ;'  '  Christ  has  come  in  the  flesK' — not  in  a  single 
man,  merely,  but  in  the  whole  of  human  nature.  While  men  believe  not,  he 
is  crucified  in  themselves.  When  they  believe,  he  rises  from  the  dead,  and 
reveals  himself  a  conqueror,  in  thexnselves. 

Again ;  '  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith  speaketh  on  this  wise,  Say  not 
in  thine  heart.  Who  shall  ascend  into  heaven  ?  (that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down 
from  above  ;)  or,  Who  shall  descend  into  the  deep  ?  (that  is,  to  bring  up 
Christ  again  from  the  dead.)  But  what  saith  it  ?  The  word  is  nigh  the^j 
even  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart  ;  that  is,  the  word  of  faith  which  wo 
preach ;  [Paul  preached  Christ;]  that  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thy  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from 
the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.'  Rom.  10:  6—9.  This  is  a  specimen  of  Paul's 
method  of  preaching  the  gospel.  To  those  who  ask,  '  What  must  we  do  to 
be  saved  ?'  he  answers.  Cease  to  look  out  of  yourselves  for  the  salvation  you 
seek— turn  to  the  light  of  Christ  within  ;  the  Word  of  God  is  in  your  heart : 
when  you  so  believe  this  that  you  are  willing  to  con^ss  it,  you  will  be  saved 
from  sin. 

We  will  now  take  for  granted  that  the  inquirer  is  intellectually  convinced 
that  according  to  the  word  of  God,  Qhrist  is  in  him,  and  that  he  must  believe 
this,  in  order  that  he  may  receive  salvation.  Now  he  asks — '  How  shall  I 
get  this  faith  ?'  We  answer  by  an  illustration.  Suppose  a  man  has  in  his 
hand  a  good  note  for  a  hundred  dollars,  which  he  supposes  to  bo  nothing  bet» 
ter  than  waste  paper.  He  is  told  that  it  is  a  genuine  note.  His  thought?? 
run  thus — '  While  I  remain  in  unbehef,  this  note  is  worth  notliing  to  me  ;  if 
I  could  believe  that  it  is  genuine,  I  should  be  richer  by  a  hundred  dollars,  in 
feeling  and  fact,  than  I  am  nOw  ;  how  shall  I  get  this  faith  V  Common  sense 
answers,  By  examining  the  note,  and  the  character  of  the  maker  of  it,    Tho 


268  CHRISTIAN    FAITH. 

Bible  13  tlie  record  of  the  will  of  God,  bj  which  men  are  declared  possessors 
of  eternal  life.  Common  sense  teaches  any  one  who  wishes  to  believe  this,  to 
examine  the  record  and  character  of  him  who  gave  it.  If  an  intelligent  and 
careful  examination  of  this  kind  does  not  produce  faith,  the  reason  must  be 
sought  in  the  spirit  of  the  inquirer.  He  stands  at  the  gate  of  a  kingdom, 
into  which  no  idols  can  be  carried.  He  knows  if  he  believes  and  confesses 
that  Christ  is  in  him,  he  will  be  severed  from  every  object  of  earthly  affection. 
Men  do  not  readily  believe  tidings  which  cross  their  interests.  '  How  can  ye 
beheve,  who  receive  honor  one  of  another,  and  seek  not  that  honor  which 
Cometh  from  God  only.'  Is  it  asked,  What  shall  a  man  do,  whose  heart  is 
wedded  to  some  earthly  object,  who  yet  desires  to  believe  ?  We  answer, 
Your  case  is  hopeless ;  unless  by  some  means  you  shall  be  brought  to  abandon 
your  idol.  You  can  never  with  the  heart  believe  the  word  of  God,  while 
your  heart  is  otherwise  engaged.  While  the  God  of  this  world  bhnds  your 
mind,  the  glorious  gospel  can  never  shine  into  it.  The  man  who  is  willing  to 
part  with  every  thing  for  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  who  sincerely  hungers  and 
thirsts  after  righteousness,  will  easily  believe  the  word  which  announces  his 
salvation.  When  an  honest  man  gives  an  account  of  events,  which  even  in- 
volve no  special  interest,  his  hearers  beheve  him  as  a  matter  of  course.  No 
effort  to  beheve  is  thought  of.  But  how  easily  and  eagerly  do  men  believe, 
when  they  hear  good  tidings  touching  a  matter  concerning  which  they  have 
been  anxious  !  If  I  am  in  a  state  of  anxious  suspense  about  the  safety  of  a 
friend,  and  a  messenger  brings  the  word,  '  He  is  safe !'  the  eager  joy  of  faith 
rushes  through  me  like  an  electric  shock — I  have  immediate  peace  in  believ- 
ing. So  the  gospel  is  no  sooner  heard  than  believed,  by  one  who  truly  thirsts 
for  the  water  of  life.  When  he  hears  the  word  of  God,  '  Christ  is  in  you,  a 
conqueror  over  sin  and  death  ! — all  is  safe  !' — he  believes  at  once,  and  be- 
lie vmg,  passes  from  death  unto  life. 

If  the  inquirer  declares  himself  willing  to  part  with  his  idols,  and  yet  can- 
not believe,  we  must  search  through  his  spirit  again  for  the  reason  of  his  un- 
belief. Perhaps  he  is  saying  in  his  heart,  '  I  would  believe,  if  I  could  feel 
that  Christ  is  m  me,  and  I  am  saved :'  in  other  words,  '  I  will  beheve  the 
testimony  of  my  own  feelings,  but  not  the  word  of  God.'  This  is  wrong. 
A  right  spirit  says,  '  Let  God  be  true,  and  every  man  a  liar — God  says  he  has 
given  me  his  Son  and  eternal  hfe  ;  my  feelings  contradict  his  record  ;  my 
feelings  are  the  liars — God  is  true  ;  I  know  and  will  testify  that  Christ  is  in 
me  a  whole  Savior,  because  God  declares  it,  whether  my  feelings  accord  with 
the  testimony  or  not.'  If  you  wish  for  peace  and  salvation  by  the  witness  of 
the  Spirit,  before  you  beheve,  you  wish  for  the  fruit  before  there  is  any  root. 
Righteousness,  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  the  consequences  of 
faith ;  the  word  of  God,  and  that  orly,  is  its  foundation.  The  man  who  holds 
the  note  for  a  hundred  dollars,  in  unbelief,  cannot  expect  to  feel  richer  than 
usual,  till  he  believes  the  note  to  be  genuine  ;  and  he  would  be  considered  a 
very  foohsh  man,  if  he  should  say  in  answer  to  arguments  in  favor  of  the  gen- 
uineness of  the  note — '  I  feel  as  poor  as  ever,  therefore  the  note  cannot  be 
good.'  Christ  says,  '  Behold  I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock ;  if  any  man 
bear  my  voice  and  open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  to  him,  and  sup  with  him, 


CHRISTIAN    FAITH.  269 

and  he  with  me.'  Let  the  inquirer  understand,  that  beljeving  the  word  of 
God  opens  the  door  for  the  admission  of  the  living  witness.  It  is  wrong  in 
this  situation  to  say, '  I  would  open  the  door  if  I  could  see  him  who  stands  on 
the  outside.'  You  cannot  see  through  the  door  of  unbelief.  You  hear  the 
Savior's  voice — that  is  enough — beheve,  open  the  door,  and  you  shall  see 
him  and  sup  with  him.  While  you  are  asking  for  sight  and  supper,  before 
you  open  the  door,  Christ  is  suffering  for  your  folly,  knocking  without. 

If  the  inquirer  is  now  convinced  that  he  is  not  to  look  for  peace  before  be- 
lieving, but  in  beheving;  nothing  is  wanting  to  complete  his  salvation,  but 
such  a  confidence  in  what  his  intellect  perceives  to  be  the  truth  of  God,  as  will 
produce  a  confession  that  Christ  is  in  him,  a  Savior  from  all  sin.  He  can 
try  his  faith  by  such  a  question  as  this — '  Am  I  willing  without  further  evi- 
dence, relying  solely  on  the  testimony  of  God,  to  confess  Christ  a  whole  Sav- 
ior ?  Confession,  or  a  willingness  to  confess  Christ,  is  the  accompaniment 
rather  than  the  consequence  of  faith.  Intellectual  belief  becomes  an  active 
principle,  a  belief  of  the  heart,  in  the  very  act  of  confession.  It  is  to  no  pur- 
pose in  this  spot,  to  make  experiments  upon  God,  as  many  have  attempted  to 
do,  by  undertaking  to  believe,  while  confession  is  withheld  till  the  success  of 
faith  is  ascertained.  A  whole-hearted  and  everlasting  surrender  to  the  faith- 
fulness of  God  alone,  pan  secure  the  fulfilment  of  his  promises  to  faith.  Such 
a  surrender  can  be  made  only  by  a  confession,  which  leaves  no  way  for  re- 
treat. Men  are  permitted  to  enter  the  kingdom  only  on  condition  of  destroy- 
ing the  bridge  behind  them. 

As  God  is  true,  the  man  who  thus  confesses  Christ,  shall  be  confessed  of 
him,  before  the  Father.  His  peace  shall  be  like  a  river,  and  his  righteous- 
ness as  the  waves  of  the  sea.  By  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  he  shall  know 
that  he  is  a  child  of  God,  and  know  that  '  whosoever  is  born  of  God  doth 
not  commit  sin :  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him;  and  he  cannot  sin,  because 
he  is  born  of  God.' 

We  have  endeavored  to  describe  Christian  faith,  the  act  by  which  man 
submits  himself  to  the  righteousness  of  God.  If  it  is  said — '  Faith  is  the  root 
of  righteousness,  and  you  have  represented  faith  as  man's  act,  so  that  after 
all,  the  agency  of  man  isfihe  source  of  salvation' — we  reply.  Faith  is  the 
gift  of  God;  for  '  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  hy  the  word  of  €rod.^ 
God  is  the  giver  of  the  gospel,  and  the  gospel  is  the  food  of  faith  ;  so  that 
salvation  is  wholly  of  grace.  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  eternal  life, 
is  the  gift  of  God.  The  water  of  the  word,  which  apprises  men  of  their 
possession  of  eternal  Hfe,  is  the  gift  of  God.  The  Spirit  which  bears  wit- 
ness in  believers,  and  saves  them  from  sin,  is  the  gift  of  God.  To  him  bo 
glory  for  ever. 


§  39.     SETTLEMENT  WITH  THE  PAST. 

When  a  person  who  has  served  God  devotedly  under  the  law,  and  has 
iiad  much  happy  and  notable  experience  in  the  service,  conies  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  new  covenant  and  sees  before  him  a  second  conversion,  without 
which,  he  is  conscious,  he  cannot  claim  the  name  and  inheritance  of  the  sons 
of  God,  the  startling  question  arises,  '  How  shall  I  dispose  of  my  past  expe- 
rience ?  Was  it  a  delusion  ?  That  cannot  be.  But  it  Avas  not  saving  experi- 
ence. AYhat  then  was  its  character  and  value  ?'  If  he  loves  the  things 
which  are  before  more  than  those  which  are  behind,  he  resolutely  surmounts 
these  questions,  even  if  he  cannot  satisfactorily  answer  them  ;  and  cheerfully 
embraces  salvation  from  sin,  even  at  the  expense  of  depreciating  his  old  eX' 
perience.  But  if  the  spiritual  treasures  which  he  has  acquired  are  so  great 
that  he  cannot  turn  his  heart  away  from  them  to  the  new  hope  which  he  has 
found,  he  is  in  danger  of  compromising  his  conscience  and  love  of  truth,  by 
contenting  himself  with  some  counterfeit  form  of  holiness,  which  can  be 
made  a  supplement  to  his  former  conversion,  instead  of  supplanting  it.  In 
this  way,  undoubtedly,  the  various  forms  of  semi-Perfectionism  which  are 
abroad,  have  originated. 

The  same  danger  and  difficulty  stands  in  the  way,  to  arrest  the  advent  of 
new  dispensations,  as  well  as  the  advance  of  individuals.  Christianity,  pre- 
senting itself,  not  as  a  continuation  and  improvement  of  Judaism,  but  as  a 
radical  revolution — a  new  dispensation,  to  which  all  that  had  gone  before 
was  but  preliminary — ^had  a  long  and  hard  contest  with  the  attachment  of  its 
followers,  as  well  as  its  enemies,  to  the  religion  of  their  ancestors.  It  was 
asked  then,  as  it  is  asked  now,  when  Christianity  is  set  on  high  above  Juda^ 
ism,  where  it  belongs — '  How  do  you  dispose  of  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  ? 
Had  they  no  true  experience  ?  Were  they  not  children  of  God  V  '  Art  thou 
greater  (said  the  Jews  to  Christ)  than  our  father  Abraham  ?  .  .  .  Whom 
makest  thou  thyself?'  Reverence  for  the  experience  and  ways  of  the  an- 
cient saints,  undoubtedly  long  held  back  even  thei^postles  from  the  discovery 
and  announcement  of  the  supplanting  greatness  of  the  new  dispensation.  It 
was  a  bold  stand  that  Paul  took,  when  he  said  of  the  whole  series  of  Old 
Testament  worthies — '  These  all  having  obtained  a  good  report  through  faith, 
received  not  the  promise,  God  having  provided  some  better  thing  for  us, 
that  they  without  us  should  not  be  made  perfect.' 

We  believe  that  now,  after  the  ages  of  a  second  legal  dispensation,  (da- 
ting from  the  transfer  of  God's  discipline  from  the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles,) 
the  new  covenant  is  again  coming  to  light.  The  gospel  of  salvation  from  sin 
is  not  absolutely  new.  It  was  given  to  the  world  and  its  power  was  known 
in  the  apostohc  age  ;  and  a  record  of  it  was  left  in  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  •  But  relatively/  to  the  generations  that  have  lived  since  the  fall 
from  grace  to  legality,  (which  may  safely  be  dated  from  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,)  it  is  a  new  gospel.  The  changes  which  it  proposes  to  Christen- 
dom  are  as  revolutionizing  and  startling,  as  those  which  primitive  Christian- 


SETTLEMElfT   WITH  THE  PAST.  271* 

ifey  proposed  to  the  Jews.  If  any  think  that  it  is  presumptuous  and  irreyer* 
ent  toward  the  great  and  good  of  past  ages  to  admit  such  a  behef  as  this,  our 
reply  is — '  We  beheve  this,  not  because  we  reverence  the  ancients  less,  but 
because  we  reverence  God  more.  If  our  eye  were  on  man,  whose  tendency 
is  downward  toward  weakness  and  corruption,  we  should  be  disposed  to  think 
the  past  greater  than  the  present  and  future.  But  with  our  eye  on  God, 
whose  course  is  onward  from  glory  to  greater  glory,  it  is  but  modesty  to 
think  the  present  and  future  greater  than  the  past. 

But  what  shall  we  do  with  the  experience  of  the  multitude  of  saints  whose 
memory  the  sects  delight  to  honor  ?  All  Christendom  has  abounded  with 
wonderful  conversions,  and  bright  manifestations  of  spiritual  piety.  Some 
are  ready  to  overwhelm  us  with  persuasions  that  such  men  as  Brainerd,  Ed- 
wards, Payson  ,  and  Taylor,  were  incarnations  of  true  Christianity.  Others 
appeal  still  more  confidently  to  a  different  class  of  models,  such  as  Madame 
Guion,  Hester  Ann  Rogers,  and  Wm.  Law.  Several  whole  sects  have  held 
some  form  of  the  doctrine  of  holiness,  and  have,  more  or  less  extensively,  ex- 
perienced and  professed  '  sanctification.'  Is  all  this  to  be  accounted  as 
nothing  ?  Were  not  these  illustrious  men  and  women  born  of  God  ?  Has 
there  been  no  knowledge  of  the  true  gospel  of  holiness  among  the  Wesleyans 
and  Moravians  and  Quakers  and  Shakers  ?  These  are  questions  which  it 
behooves  us  to  consider,  with  modesty  and  charity  on  the  one  hand,  and  with 
independence  and  jealousy  for  the  truth  of  the  gospel  on  the  other. 

1.  As  to  the  ordinary  class  of  pietists  in  the  carnal  churches,  we  shall  say 
nothing.     To  those  who  sincerely  believe  that  '  whosoever  sinneth  hath  not 
seen  Christ,  neither  known  him,'  (and  to  such  believers  we  at  present  address 
ourselves,)  it  need  not  be  proved  that  confessors  and  professors  of  sin  are  not        . 
Christians,  however  interesting  may  be  their  spiritual  history.  ^ 

2.  Of  the  more  distinguished  spiritualists  of  the  churches,  David  Brainerd 
may  be  taken  as  a  fair  specimen.  The  picture  which  his  biography  gives  of 
his  general  experience  is  in  essence  a  transcript  of  the  seventh  chapter  of 
Romans.  The  Religious  Encyclopedia  says  he  had  '  a  most  humbling  and 
constant  sense  of  his  own  iniquity,  which  was  a  greater  burden  to  him  than 
all  his  afflictions,  great  brokenness  of  heart  before  God  for  the  coldness  of  his 
love  and  the  imperfection  of  his  Christian  virtues.'  It  is  evident  that  he  was, 
through  life,  under  conviction^  panting  after  freedom  from  sin,  but  never 
reaching  it.  Interesting  and  praiseworthy  as  such  experience  was  in  the  dim 
light  of  Brainerd's  time,  and  valuable  as  it  was  as  a  preliminary  to  that  high- 
er spiritual  education  which,  we  trust,  awaited  him  within  the  veil,  it  certainly 
was  not  Christian  experience.  With  him  may  be  classed  Edwards,  Payson^ 
and  nearly  all  of  those  who  have  obtained  the  highest  distinction  for  piety  in  i/ 
the  churches. 

3.  James  Brainerd  Taylor's  experience  was  of  a  higher  grade.  He  came 
apparently  to  the  very  borders  of  the  gospel,  where  he  saiv  clearly  the  priv- 
ilege and  glory  of  salvation  from  sin.  This  was  the  theme  of  his  meditation 
and  conversation ;  and  he  even  confessed,  at  times,  in  a  timid  way,  that  he 
was  free  from  sin.  In  this  respect  he  as  really  condemned  the  routine  of 
Biaxdng  and  repenting  which  was  the  only  experience  allowed  or  known  in  the 


272  SETTLEMENT  WITH  THE  PAST. 

churches  before  him,  as  we  do.  His  biographers  were  so  sensible  of  this, 
that  they  thought  it  necessary  to  suppress  the  clearest  part  of  his  testimony 
in  relation  to  his  own  salvation.  He  was  indeed  a  '  burning  and  a  shining 
light' — the  John  the  Baptist  of  the  doctrine  of  holiness — the  connecting  hnk 
between  the  old  dispensation  and  the  new.  The  impulse  which  he  gave, 
contributed  materially  to  the  birth  of  the  true  gospel.  The  semi-Perfectionist 
schools  that  have  arisen  since  his  time,  (those  of  Mahan,  Beecher,  &c.,) 
have  fallen  behind,  rather  than  advanced  beyond  him.  In  determining  his 
position,  we  shall  determine  the  position  of  his  followers.  We  allege,  then, 
(1,)  that  in  his  religious  course  as  a  whole,  confession  of  sin  was  the  rule,  and 
confession  of  holiness  the  exception  ;  (2,)  that  he  never '  received  the  prom- 
ise' of  the  new  covenant,  the  very  essence  of  which  is  a  pledge  of  security  in 
hoHness  ;  (3,)  that  he  gave  no  evidence  of  any  clear  knowledge  of  the  radi- 
cal distinction  between  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations,  the  spiritual 
at-one-ment,  the  regenerating  power  of  Christ's  resurrection,  and  the  Bible 
standard  of  the  second  birth.  His  views  of  regeneration  did  not  differ  mate- 
rially from  those  of  the  churches  of  which  he  was  a  member  and  minister. 
If  they  had,  he  would  have  been  put  under  arrest.  He  never  planted  him- 
self on  the  high  position  that '  he  that  is  born  of  God  sinneth  not.'  He  be- 
lieved and  taught  as  other  ministers  do,  that  conversion  to  a  religion  of  sin 
and  repentance  is  regeneration  ;  and  of  course  that  conversion  to  holiness  is 
not  of  itself  the  radical  and  essential  work  of  grace,  but  only  a  very  desirable 
supplement  to  sinful  regeneration.  In  view  of  these  facts  we  conclude  with- 
out a  scruple,  that  he  did  not  know  the  gospel  of  the  primitive  church,  and 
was  not  born  of  God  in  the  Bible  sense.  We  do  not  beheve  that  James 
Brainerd  Taylor  himself,  if  he  were  now  to  return  from  the  world  of  spirits, 
would  find  fault  with  us  for  thus  plainly  statmg  these  facts  and  this  conclusion. 
4.  The  same  things,  in  substance,  may  be  said  of  WilHam  Law,  Madame 
Guion,  and  the  whole  class  of  mystic  Perfectionists.  They  had  much  knowl- 
edge and  experience  in  some  departments  of  spiritual  truth,  and  their  wri- 
tings may  be  read  with  profit  by  the  disciples  of  the  gospel.  Their  labors 
*  prepared  the  way  of  the  Lord.'  But  the  discerning  reader  of  their  books 
will  find  that  their  strength  was  laid  out,  not  on  the  subject  of  holiness,  nor 
on  the  great  agencies  of  the  gospel  which  gave  birth  to  holiness,  viz.,  the 
spiritual  appHcation  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  introduction 
of  the  new  covenant,  &c.,  but  on  a  system  oi  spiritual  philosophy ,  which  is 
nearly  as  independent  of  those  facts  as  the  science  of  Mesmerism,  and  has 
no  necessary  connection  with  salvation  from  sin.  Swedenborg  was  deeper  in 
this  kind  of  philosophy  than  any  of  them,  and  he  was  far  enough  from  the 
truth  on  the  subject  of  hohness.  Wilham  Law  is  the  best  representative  of 
this  class,  and  his  Address  to  the  Clergy  is  the  best  of  his  books.  Let  any 
one  examine  that  Address  critically,  (not  our  edition,  which  is  expurgated 
of  the  worst  of  its  legalities  and  false  doctrines,  but  the  whole  original  Ad- 
dress,) and  he  will  find  that  its  treatment  of  salvation  from  sin  by  the  faith  of 
Christ — the  central  subject  of  the  gospel, — is  very  meagre  ;  that  more  of  its 
pages  are  devoted  to  non-resistance  and  other  legalities,  than  to  holiness ; 
that  its  main  doctrine  is,  that  religion  is  the  fruit  of  inspiration — a  true  and 


SETTLEMENT  WITH  TEE  PAST.  27  3 

valuable  doctrine,  and  admirably  developed,  but  wo^  the  gospel ;  that  it  af» 
firms  the  existence  of  an  original  indestructible  divine  nature  in  all  men;  de- 
nies, in  the  face  of  the  Bible,  the  doctrine  of  election,  and  openly  avows 
Universalism.  Law  was  the  real  father  of  Methodist  Perfectionism,  and  his 
image  may  be  seen  in  it.  We  leave  the  reader  to  judge  whether  the  father 
of  such  a  child  had  knowledge  and  experience  of  the  new  covenant  gospel. 

5.  The  various  sects  that  have  held  the  doctrine  of  perfection,  such  as 
the  Methodists,  Moravians,  and  Shakers,  may  be  spoken  of  in  the  lump. 
(1,)  They  have  all  made  holiness  not  the  main  point  in  religion,  but  an  ap- 
pendage to  something  else.  (2, )  They  have  denied  or  suppressed  the  most 
essential  element  of  the  new  covenant,  viz.  security,  (3,)  They  have  dealt 
largely  in  various  legalities.  (4,)  They  have  not  manifested  any  true  knoAvl- 
edge  of  those  great  facts  of  gospel  history  which  are  inseparably  connected 
with  the  primitive  doctrine  of  holiness,  viz.,  the  radical  change  of  dispensa- 
tion at  the  introduction  of  Christianity,  and  the  Second  Advent  at  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Each  of  these  defects  is  sufficient  to  render  an 
attempt  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  holiness  in  the  world  an  abortion.  Holi- 
ness, as  a  secondary  to  something  else  ;  holiness  without  security ;  holiness 
under  law  ;  holiness  without  the  truth  of  the  new  covenant ;  and  especially, 
holiness  under  all  these  evil  conditions,  has  no  permanent  vitality — cannot  live 
long  in  the  smothering  atmosphere  of  this  sinful  world.  Accordingly,  the 
preaching  and  profession  of  salvation  from  sin,  in  the  sects  of  which  we  speak, 
after  some  flourish  at  the  beginning,  has  died  away  and  become  virtually,  if 
not  formally,  exdnct.  We  have  at  the  present  time  experiments  of  this  kind 
in  progress,  by  which  the  value  of  the  various  semi-Perfectionisms  of  the  past 
may  be  judged.     Oberlin  is  a  specimen. 

All  the  approaches  that  have  been  made  by  individuals  and  sects  toward 
the  gospel  of  salvation  from  sin,  since  the  commencement  of  the  Gentile 
economy,  are  to  be  regarded  as  a  series  of  convictions  in  the  experience  of 
the  religious  world,  more  or  less  pungent,  preceding  and  tending  to  the  final 
effectual  conversion  to  holiness.  The  churches  have  had  the  record  of  the 
primitive  gospel  before  them  ;  and  gleams  of  the  central  truths  of  that  gospel 
could  not  but  flash  out  from  time  to  time,  in  spite  of  all  the  envelopments  of 
commentaries.  The  Spirit  of  truth  has  co-operated  with  the  record ;  and 
when  the  circumstances  and  temperaments  of  individuals  and  sects  have  far 
vored  the  operation  of  these  agencies,  a  conviction  has  been  produced,  which 
has  manifested  itself  in  partial  and  temporary  enthusiasms  about  salvation 
from  sin.  Some  have  groaned  under  the  fight ;  others  have  reflected  it  ob- 
scurely and  for  a  season,  in  their  experience.  But  a  thorough  spiritual  crisis 
was  never  formed  till  within  a  few  years.  Half-way  measures  of  reform  were 
adopted,  and  the  convictions  passed  away,  as  they  often  pass  away  from  in- 
dividuals convinced  of  sin. 

Whoever  has  come  up  out  of  the  law,  into  the  grace  of  full  salvation,  re- 
members that  he  had  repeated  seasons  of  deep  interest  and  anxiety  on  the 
subject  of  holiness,  before  he  came  to  the  decisive  crisis  ;  and  that,  in  some 
happy  moments,  when  the  truth  that  shone  upon  him  gave  color  to  his  feel- 
ings, and  the  dawning  hope  of  holiness  seemed  a  reafity,  he  was  emboldened 


274  fi^TLEMENt    WITH   fHK   PASt. 

to  proclaim  tlie  attainableness  of  that  blessing,  and  to  confess  in  some  dul)i« 
ous  waj,  as  the  Oberlin  brethren  do,  his  own  experience  of  it.  This,  we 
believe,  is  a  miniature  of  the  experience  of  the  religions  world,  and  places  in 
a  true  light  the  various  semi-Perfectionisms  of  individuals  and  sects,  which 
have  manifested  themselves  in  the  past  history  of  Christendom. 

This  view^  shows  us  the  true  answer  to  those  who  tell  us  that  the  doctrine 
of  perfection  is  an  old  heresy  that  has  been  tried  and  exploded  again  and 
again  in  the  past  ages  of  the  church.  The  trials  and  explosions  which  they 
refer  to,  were  convictions  of  truths  recurring  agaiii  and  again  in  spite  of  all 
Satan's  efforts  to  suppress  them.  And  these  wise  men,  at  the  present  crisis^ 
are  doing  for  the  religious  world  just  w4iat4he  tempter  does  for  the  awakened 
sinner,  when  he  suggests  that  the  convictions  which  are  now  pressing  upon 
tim,  have  troubled  him  again  and  agaiti  before,  but  never  effected  any 
thing. 

The  analogy  which  is  properly  to  be  looked  for,  between  the  first  and  sec-* 
ond  dispensations  of  law,  confirms  the  conclusion  to  which  the  preceding  sug- 
gestions lead.  In  the  course  of  the  Mosaic  econofny,  there  were,  from  time 
to  timCj  notable  revivals  of  spirituality^  and  approximations  to  gospel  knowl- 
edge and  experience.  Yet  we  know  that  '  the  w^ay  into  the  hohest  was  not 
made  manifest  while  the  first  tabernacle  was  standing/  and  that  the  Old  Tes- 
tament saints  were  not  born  of  God  till  the  harvest-tiftie  of  their  dispensation. 
Regeneration  is  the  beginning  of  the  resurrection;  and  the  beginning  of  such 
ft  process  cannot  be  far  from  the  etid*  Accordingly  men  were  not  born  of 
God  till  just  before  the  first  resurrection.  The  transition^period  between  the 
first  and  second  coming  of  Christ  was  but  the  tiftie  of  one  generation ;  and 
it  was  during  that  period  that  the  true  goapel  w^etit  forth,  and  the  saints,  for 
the  first  time,  experienced  the  second  birth.  It  might  reasonably  be  inferred,- 
therefore,  that  in  the  Gentile  dispensation  of  lawj  the  revelation  of  Christ 
as  a  Savior  from  sin 5  and  the  introduction  of  the  new  covenant,  would  be 
deferred  till  near  the  harvest-time — that  regeneration,  instead  of  being  dis* 
tributed  along  the  whole  course  of  the  dispensation,  would  be  the  near  pre- 
cursor of  the  second  resurrection.  We  do  not  disparage  the  worthies  of  the 
Gentile  church,  when  we  say  of  them- — '  These  all,  having  obtained  a  good 
Import  through  faith,  received  not  the  promise  ;  God  having  provided  some 
better  thing  for  us,  that  they  without  us  should  not  be  made  perfect.'  It  is 
tio  disparagement  to  any  of  the  laborers  in  God's  vineyard,  to  say  that  he 
has  so  arranged  the  times  and  seasons  of  his  grace  that  *  he  that  soweth  and 
he  that  reapeth,  rejoice  together.' 

The  object  of  our  labor  on  this  subject,  is  to  check  the  tendency  which  is 
very  strong  in  the  churches,  and  exists  more  or  less  among  I^erfectionists,  to 
look  back  to  the  experience  and  teachings  of  such  men  as  Brainerd,  Taylor^ 
and  Law,  as  though  they  were  standards  of  gospel  truth.  Much  jealousy  has 
been  manifested  in  certain  quarters,  lest  Perfectionists  should  lower  the  stan^ 
dard  of  the  law.  But  there  is  a  ivorse  kind  of  standard-lowering  than  this. 
Law,  so  long  as  the  holiness  which  it  requires  is  regarded  as  an  unattainable 
abstraction  not  necessary  to  salvation,  may  be  exalted  to  heaven  without 
Shaking  any  body  the  better.     The  standard  ^hich  has  most  t^  do  with  prac- 


gECOND   COMING   OF   CHRIST.  275 

xical  interests,  is  that  of  attainable,  necessary  experience.  But  the  very  men 
who  say  so  much  against  lowering  the  standard  of  the  law,  are  the  first  to 
turn  away  from  the  primitive  standard  of  experience,  and  level  all  hopes  to 
the  height  attained  by  certain  modern  saints,  whose  biographies  are  highly 
esteemed.  We  appeal  from  all  these  biographies  to  the  record  of  that  church 
which  established  this  standard  of  experience  : — 0^'IIe  that  is  born  of  God 
doth  not  commit  sin;  for  his  seed  remaimth  in  him  ;  and  he  cannot  sin^M- 
cause  he  is  horn  of  G-od.'j:;^  Boldly  may  we  say  of  any  saint,  ancient  or 
modern,  who  has  fallen  short  in  knowledge  and  experience  of  the  hohness  and 
the  security  defined  in  this  standard,  though  he  may  have  been  greatest  of  all 
that  have  been  born  of  women,  '  he  that  is  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heavea  13 
greater  than  he/ 


HO.    THE  SECOND  COMING  OF  CHRIST, 

On  almost  every  page  of  the  New  Testament  we  find  the  second  coming 
of  Christ  held  up  as  the  central  beacon-light  of  the  hopes  of  believers — an 
event  which  should  bring  ^em  a  perfect^  secure,  and  glorious  redemption. 
We  select  the  following  passages  as  specimens  of  a  multitude  of  expressions 
relating  to  that  event : — '  Then  shall  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  a 
cloud  with  power  and  great  glory :  and  when  these  things  begin  to  come  to 
pass,  then  look  up  and  lift  up  your  heads,  for  your  redemption  draweth  nigh.* 
Luke  21:  26,  27.  '  Our  conversation  is  in  heaven;  from  whence  also  we 
look  for  the  Savior,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  change  our  vile  body, 
and  make  it  like  unto  his  glorious  body.'  Phil.  3:  20.  *  When  Christ,  who  is 
our  life,  shall  appear,  then  shall  we  also  appear  with  him  in  glory.'  CoL  3; 
4.  '  Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness,  v/hich  the 
Lord  the  righteous  Judge  shall  give  me  at  that  day  ;  and  not  to  me  only, 
but  to  all  them  also  that  love  his  appearing.'  2Tim.  4:  8.  '  Looking  for  that 
blessed  hope,  and  the  glorious  appearing  of  the  great  God  and  our  Savior  Je- 
sus Christ.'  Tit.  2:  13.  Unto  them  that  look  for  him  shall  he  appear  the 
second  time,  without  sin,  unto  salvation.'  Heb.  11:  28.  '  Be  patient  there* 
fore,  brethren,  unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord.  Behold  the  husbandman  wait- 
eth  for  the  precious  fruit  of  the  earth,  and  hath  long  patience  for  it,  until  he 
receive  the  early  and  latter  rain :  be  ye  also  patient,  stablish  your  hearts, 
for  the  coming  of  the  Lord  draweth  nigh.'  James  5:  7,  8.  '  Gird  up  the  loins 
of  your  minds — be  sober  and  hope  to  the  end  for  the  grace  that  is  to  be  brought 
unto  you  at  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ.'  1  Pet.  1:  13.  '  We  know  that 
when  he  shall  appear  we  shall  be  like  him.'  1  John  3:  2,  &c. 

The  glorious  event  which  thus  animated  the  faith  of  primitive  believers,  as 
marking  the  period  of  the  perfeetion  of  their  faith,  and  their  entrance  upon 
the  possession  of  the  fullness  of  the  gift  of  God's  grace,  though  seemingly  nigh 
at  hand  at  that  time,  is  at  this  day  generally  thrown  forward,  in  the  faith  of 


I' 


276  SECOND   COMING   OF   CHBIST. 

the  churches,  into  the  shadows  of  a  distant  and  indefinite  futurity.  Our  ob- 
ject in  the  present  article,  is  to  call  the  attention  of  those  who  love  the  word 
of  God  more  than  creeds,  to  the  testimony  of  that  word  concerning  the  twie 
of  the  second  comhig  of  the  Son  of  man. 

I.  Definition  of  the  second  coming. 

What  is  meant  hy  the  second  eomiyig  of  Christ  ?  We  may  answer  this 
question  bv  referring  to  one  of  those  parables  in  which  Christ  presents  a  min- 
iature of  the  whole  dispensation  introduced  by  his  first  coming.  '  A  certain 
nobleman  went  into  a  far  country,  to  receive  for  himself  a  kingdom,  and  to 
return.  And  he  called  his  ten  servants,  and  deUvered  them  ten  pounds,  and 
said  unto  them,  Occupy  till  I  come.  But  his  citizens  hated  him,  and  sent  a 
message  after  him,  saying,  we  will  not  have  this  man  to  reign  over  us.  And 
it  came  to  pass,  that  when  he  was  retmiied,  having  received  the  kingdom^ 
then  he  commanded  these  servants  to  be  called  unto  him,'  [and  he  reckoned 
with  them,  and  rewarded  them  accoring  to  their  several  merits,  both  good 
and  bad,  and  then  said] — '  But  those  mine  enemies,  which  avouIcI  not  that  I 
should  reign  over  them,  bring  hither,  and  slay  them  before  me.'  Luke  19: 12. 
This  illustration  represents  the  first  coming  of  Christ,  as  the  period  when  he 
delivered  the  treasures  of  the  gospel  to  his  servants,  and  went  away  ;  and  his 
second  coming  as  the  period  when  he  returned  and  reckoned  with  them,  re- 
warding the  faithful,  and  taking  vengeance  on  his  enemies.  The  parable 
may  also  be  understood  as  intimating  that  Christ  in  his  fir^.t  coming  was 
comparatively  poiverless ;  but  when  he  came  the  second  time,  he  had 
^received  a  kingdom^  and  was  clothed  with  full  power  to  judge,  reward,  and 
execute  vengeance.  By  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  then,  we  mean  his 
coming  in  the  power  of  judgment,  to  reckon  tvith,  reward,  and  punish,  those 
to  whom  he  delivered  the  gospel  at  his  first  coming — we  mean  the  day  of 
judgment  for  the  primitive  church  and  the  Jetuish  nation. 

We  do  not  onean  by  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  the  final  and  genlhal 
JUDGMENT.  The  popular  notion  concerning  the  judgment  of  mankind  is,  that 
it  is  to  be  a  single  transaction,  occupying  a  single  period  of  time.  Joining 
this  notion  to  the  discovery,  which  everv  reader  of  the  New  Testament  must 
ultimately  make,  that  the  judgment  of  the  second  coming  is  clearly  predicted 
in  the  New  Testament  as  immediately  to  follow  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
many  have  believed  and  taught  that '  the  judgment  [meaning  the  whole,  or 
final  judgment]  is  past."*  These  views,  whether  held  by  Universahsts  or 
Perfectionists,  we  disclaim,  and  instead  of  them,  insist  that  the  judgment  of 
mankind,  according  to  scripture,  is  divided  into  two  acts,  occupying  two  peri- 
ods of  time,  separated  from  each  other  by  an  interval  of  more  than  a  thousand 
years.  In  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Revelations  this  division  of  the  judgment 
is  unequivocally  described.  John  saw,  when  Satan  was  first  bound  and  cast 
into  the  pit,  thrones  and  judgment  given  to  the  martyrs  of  Christ,  and  they 
lived  and  reigned  with  him  a  thousand  years,  but  the  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not. 
'  This,'  says  the  apostle,  '  is  the  first  resurrection;'  and  we  may  properly  add, 
this  is  ^\Q  first  judgment.  liev.  20:  5.  Afterward  Satan  is  loosed  again,*  gath- 
ers Gog  and  Magog  to  the  great  battle,  is  defeated  and  cast  into  the  lake  of 
fire  forever.  Then  again  appears  a  throne,  a  second  resurrection  and  a  «ecv 
one?  judgment.  Rev.  20:  12, 


I 


SECOND    COMING   OF   CHRIST.  277 


The  same  division  of  the  judgment  into  two  acts,  separated  by  a  long  inter- 
val, is  very  conspicuous  in  the  vision  of  the  seals  and  trumpets.  Rev.  6: 
7,  &c.  When  the  sixth  seal  opens,  the  Lamb  appears  on  the  throne  of  judg- 
ment and  the  tribes  of  the  earth  wail  because  of  him,  saying,  '  the  great  day 
of  his  wrath  is  come.''  Afterwards  the  seventh  seal  is  opened,  and  seven 
angels  with  trumpets  are  introduced.  As  they  sound  their  trumpets  succes- 
sively, a  variety  of  events  transpire,  necessarily  occupying  a  long  period  of 
time.  At  length,  after  the  sounding  of  the  seventh  trumpet,  Christ  is  pro- 
claimed sovereign  of  the  world,  and  a  second  and  final  day  of  judgment  is 
announced.  Rev.  11:  15 — 18.  Unless  the  sixth  seal  covers  the  same  period 
with  the  seventh  trumpet,  (which  cannot  be  maintained  with  any  show  of 
reason,)  it  is  manifest  to  mere  inspection  that  there  are  tzuo  acts  of  judgment  / 
— tivo  periods  of  wrath  and  recompense. 

As  G-od  divided  mankind  into  two  great  families — the  Jew^s  and  the  Gen- 
tiles— so  he  has  appointed  a  separate  judgment  for  each.  The  harvest  of 
the  Jews  came  first,  because  they  w^ere  ripened  first.  God  separated  them 
from  the  rest  of  the  nations,  and  for  two  thousand  years  poured  upon  them 
the  sunshine  and  the  rain  of  religious  discipline.  When  Christ  came  he  said 
the  fields  were  white.  By  the  preaching  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  the  pro- 
cess, necessary  to  make  way  for  the  judgment,  was  complete.  At  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  the  Jews  as  a  nation  were  judged.  Then  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  passed  from  the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles.  Matt.  21:  48.  God 
commenced  a  process  of  preparation  for  a  second  judgment.  The  Gentiles 
came  under  the  sunshine  and  rain,  which  had  before  been  sent  upon  the  Jews. 
For  nearly  two  thousand  years  the  Gentile  crop  has  been  maturing,  and  we 
may  reasonably  look  for  the  Gentile  harvest  as  near. 

That  we  may  therefore  speak  of  the  judgment  scripturally  and  intelligently, 
we  will  distinctly  recognize  the  division  of  it  which  is  made  in  scripture,  by 
calling  one  of  the  acts  the  ^^^stjiidfinient,  and  the  other  the  final  judgmeyit. 
With  this  explanation,  we  shall  be  understood  when  we  say,  ^lat  in  speak- 
ing of  the  second  coming  of  Christ  v;e  refer  to  the  first  and  not  to  the  filial 
judgment.  It  is  not  our  object  in  this  article  to  discuss  the  subject  of  the 
second  or  final  judgment.  The  simple  confession  here  that  we  believe  it  to 
he  future,  will  sufficiently  preclude  any  honest  inference  from  the  doctrine 
we  are  about  to  present,  that  we  believe,  or  wish  to  believe  that  the  day  of 
our  judgment  is  past. 

XL    CnniST'S   DESIGXATION    OF   THE   TIME   OF   HIS    SECOND    COMING. 

In  our  inquiries  about  the  time  of  the  second  coming,  it  is  important  that 
we  receive  the  testimony  of  scripture  in  its  proper  order.  The  first  question 
is,  ivho  shall  he  our  first  ivitness  ?  Shall  we  call  Daniel  upon  the  stand,  and 
taking  his  prophetic  numbers  for  our  starting  poiijt,  plunge  ourselves  into  a 
chaos  of  arithmetical  calculations — and  when  we  have  made  out  a  case  by  his 
testimony,  then  admit  Jesus  Christ,  and  judge  and  m.odify  his  testimony  by 
our  reckoning  of  Dciniel's  numbers  ?  Common  sense  points  to  a  different 
mode  of  trial.  Jesus  Christ  certainly  ought  to  be  our  first  witness.  His  own 
second  coming  is  the  matter  in  question.  He  is  a  greater  than  Daniel  or  any 
other  prophet.     He  lived  nearer  than  Daniel  to  the  event.     If  he  has  spoken 


278  SECOND   COMING   OP   CHRIST. 

of  the  time  of  his  advent,  let  us  hear  him  first,  anS  then  if  necessary  judge 
and  modify  all  other  prophecies  by  his  testimony. 

In  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of  Matthew,  after  predicting  the  unexampled 
tribulations  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  Christ, says :  'Immediately  after 

the  tribulation  of  those  days,  shall  the  sun  be  darkened and  then 

shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  in  heaven,  and  then  shall  all  the  tribes 
of  the  earth  mourn  ;  and  they  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  the  clouds 
of  heaven,  with  power  and  great  glory.'  Matt.  24:  29,  30.  The  nature  of 
the  coming  here  described  is  fully  determined,  not  only  by  the  attendant 
*  gathering  of  the  elect,'  but  also  by  the  parallel  description  in  Rev.  6.  The 
language  of  John  concerning  the  •  great  day  of  the  wrath  of  the  Lamb,'  ush- 
ered in  by  the  opening  of  the  sixth  seal,  is  so  perfectly  identical  with  the 
language  of  Christ  in  the  passage  quoted,  that  we  may  reasonably  believe  he 
copied  it ;  and  we  cannot  doubt  that  he  used  it  with  reference  to  the  same 
events.  As  little  can  we  doubt  that  both  describe  a  day  oi  judgment.  Un- 
derstanding then  that  our  inquiry  relates  to  the  first  great  judgment  spoken 
of  in  the  sixth  of  Revelations,  as  well  as  in  the  twenty-fourth  of  Matthew,  we 
ask,  what  must  we  conclude  is  the  true  meaning  of  Christ's  prediction  concern- 
ing the  time  ?  He  says  that  the  time  of  that  judgment  should  be  'immediately 
■after  the  tribulatioyi'  of  the  days  of  Jerusalem's  overthrow  :  but  since  preju- 
dice and  tradition  must  for  the  present  dictate  to  common  sense,  we  are  still 
obliged  to  ask — does  he  mean  what  he  says  f  In  answering  this  question, 
we  shall  appeal  to  several  statements  in  the  subsequent  context,  and  in  other 
•discourses  of  Christ. 

1.  After  the  above  introduction  of  his  second  coming,  Christ  goes  on  to 
^ay,  '  Now  learn  a  parable  of  the  fig-tree.  When  his  branch  is  yet  tender 
.and  putteth  forth  leaves,  ye  know  that  summer  is  nigh.  So  likewise  ye,  when 
ye  see  all  these  things,  [viz.  the  visible  signs  which  he  had  foretold  in  the 
former  part  of  his  discourse,]  hnoiv  that  it  [i.  e.  his  coming]  is  near^  even 
at  the  doors.^  Matt.  24:  32,  33.  We  perceive  in  this  that  Christ  had  it  di- 
rectly in  view  to  so  instruct  his  disciples  concerning  the  time  that  they  should 
be  in  no  danger  of  mistake  ;  and  therein  we  have  a  pledge  of  the  simplicity 
•of  his  language.  So  that  there  is  no  conceivable  reason  for  doubting  that  he 
intended  to  convey  the  idea  w^hich  lies  on  the  face  of  his  words  ;  viz.  that  his 
•■second  coming  should  follow  the  visible  signs  he  foretold,  as  closely  as  sum- 
mer follows  the  budding  of  the  fig-tree.  The  last  of  those  signs  was  the  de- 
Btruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  of  course  his  statement  here  is  precisely  what  it 
was  before,  viz.,  that  the  Son  of  man  should  come,  'immediately  after  the 
tnhulation  of  those  days."*  Moreover,  it  should  be  observed  that  his  language 
.plainly  implies,  that  the  persons  he  addressed  would  have  an  opportunity  of 
observing  the  whole  series  of  tokens  that  were  to  precede  the  second  coming. 
On  any  other  supposition  the  parable  is  impertinent. 

2.  But  the  context  furnishes  another  and  still  more  indisputable  index  of 
irhe  real  meaning  of  Christ.  As  though  he  were  determined  to  accumulate 
emphasis  to  the  uttermost,  upon  the  truth  he  was  uttering,  he  proceeds  in 
the  usual  form  of  his  most  important  affirmations,  and  with  all  the  solemnity 
of  a  tremendous  oath,  to  state  once  more  the  hmitation  of  the  time  within 


SECOND    COMING    OF   CHRIST.  279' 

which  his  coming  should  take  place.  '  Verily  I  say  unto  you^  this  generation 
shall  not  pass  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled.  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass 
away,  but  my  words  shall  not  p) ass  awmy.^  Matt.  24:  34,  35.  It  is  fash- 
ionable with  those  who  have  theories  to  maintain  that  are  inconsistent  with 
this  statement,  to  work  out — each  for  himself— ingenious  expositions  of  the 
word  generation.  One  refers  it  to  the  Jews,  another  to  the  righteous,  a 
third  to  tirose  that  persecuted  Christ,  and  a  fourth  to  a  generation  that  will  be 
living  when  Christ  appears  1*  These  expositions  are  confidently  if  not  plausi- 
bly supported,  in  most  cases,  by  quotations  of  examples  from  the  Psalms  and 
prophets,  in  which  the  w^ord  generation  means,  not  the  mass  of  men  living  at 
one  time,  but  a  pecuUar  race  or  sort  of  persons :  as  for  instance,  '  God  is  in 
the  generation  of  the  righteous.'  Psa.  14:  5.  Now  the  only  fair  way  of  ar- 
guing from  usage,  w^hen  the  case  admits  of  it,  is  to  appeal  to  the  usage  of 
the  writer  himself,  whose  language  is  in  question.  Instead  of  going  to  David 
and  Isaiah,  in  another  age  and  another  language,  we  will  let  Christ  himself 
determine  w^hat  Christ  means  by  the  word  generation.  And  indeed  we  need 
not  go  out  of  the  book  of  Matthew.  Christ  uses  not  only  the  word,  but  the 
very  phrase  in  question,  '  This  ge7ieration,^  at  least  five  times  in  the  previous 
discourses  recorded  by  Matthew;  and  we  need  only  to  quote  the  passages  to 
make  manifest  his  meaning.  '  Whereunto  shall  I  liken  this  generation  f  It 
is  like  unto  children  sitting  in  the  markets,  and  calhng  unto  their  fellows,  and 
saying.  We  have  piped  unto  you,  and  ye  have  not  danced  ;  we  have  mourn- 
ed unto  you,  and  ye  have  not  lamented.  For  John  came  neither  eating  nor 
drinking,  and  they  say.  He  hath  a  devil.  The  Son  of  man  came  eating  and 
drinking,  and  they  say.  Behold  a  man  gluttonous,  and  a  wine-bibber,  a  friend 
of  publicans  and  sinners.  But  wisdom  is  justified  of  her  children.'  Matt. 
11:  16 — 19.  '  The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  rise  in  judgment  with  this  gene- 
ration, and  shall  condemn  it :  because  they  repented  at  the  preaching  of 
Jonas ;  and,  behold,  a  greater  than  Jonas  is  here.  The  queen  of  the  soutb 
shall  rise  up  in  the  judgment  with  this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  it :  for 
she  came  from  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  to  hear  the  wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon ;  and  behold,  a  greater  than  Solomon  is  here.'  12:  41,  42.  [As  the- 
unclean  spirit  returning  with  seven  other  spirits  worse  than  himself,  makes 
the  last  state  of  the  wicked  man  w^orse  than  the  first,]  '  even  so  shall  it  be 
also  unto  this  wicked  generation.''  12:  43^ — 45.  '  Behold  I  send  unto  you 
prophets,  and  wise  men,  and  scribes ;  and  some  of  them  ye  shall  kill  and 
crucify  ;  and  some  of  them  ye  shall  scourge  in  your  synagogues,  and  perse-^ 
Gute  them  from  city  to  city  ;  that  upon  you  may  come  all  the  righteous  blood 
shed  upon  the  earth,  from  the  blood  of  righteous  Abel,  unto  the  blood  of 
Zacharias,  son  of  Barachias,  whom  ye  slew  between  the  temple  and  the  altar. 
Verily  I  say  unto  you,  all  these  things  shall  come  upon  this  generation."^ 
23:  34 — 36.  Now  who  would  think  of  going  to  the  Old  Testament  for  help 
to  determine  the  meaning  of  the  word  generation  in  these  passages  ?  And 
who  can  imagine  that  the  same  w^ord  loses  its  plain  meaning  and  becomes 
jRgurative,  in  passing  from  almost  the  last  verse  of  the  twenty-third  chapter 

*  See  Clarke's  Commentary,    Miller's  Lectures,    Signs  of  the  Times,    T.  R.  Gates's 
Writings,  &c. 


280  SECOND   COMING   OF  CHRIST. 

into  the  twenty-fourth  ?  The  passage  in  dispute,  (Matt.  24:  84,)  is  the  last 
in  the  series  of  instances  in  -which  the  phrase  '  this  generation''  occurs  with 
evident  unifonnitj  of  meaning,  and  it  is  ahnost  a  literal  repetition  of  the 
instance  which  immediately  precedes  it — Matt.  23:  36.  Viewing  all  these 
passages  in  their  connection  with  each  other,  we  discover  most  clearly  that 
the  people  concerning  whom  Christ  habitually  used  the  phrase  '  tlds  genero' 
tion,^  were  they  who  as  a  mass  had  heard  and  rejected  John  the  Baptist  and 
himself,  and  were  thus  rapidly  becoming  ripe  in  wickedness.  Foreseeing  that 
this  same  generation  would  crucify  himself,  persecute  the  apostles,  and  persist 
in  their  unbelief  and  malice  till  the  measure  of  their  iniquities  would  be  full ; 
he  justly  threatened  them  with  the  gathered  vengeance  due  to  all  the  mur- 
ders of  the  righteous  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  As  chey  by  their 
pre-eminent  wickedness  were  becoming  the  representatives  of  the  sinners  of 
all  past  generations,  it  was  meet  that  the  debt  of  wrath  due  to  the  whole 
world  should  be  paid  to  them,  and  should  be  paid  without  delay,  before  the 
generation  had  left  the  earth,  that  their  sin  and  punishment  might  be  seen 
together.  Accordingly  after  saying  in  the  23d  chapter,  '  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  all  these  things'  [to  wit,  the  punishment  due  to  all  previous  persecutors] 
*  shall  come  urou  this  generation,'  he  goes  on  in  the  24th  chapter  to  specify 
the  items  of  chat  punishment.  He  speaks  of  wars,  famines,  pestilences,  earth- 
quakes, a  most  terrific  and  swelling  series  of  outward  calamities,  ending  with 
the  destruction  of  the  holy  city  ;  and  then  continuing  the  series  by  passing 
into  the  spiritual  world,  he  predicts  as  immediately  to  follow  this  climax  of 
outward  ruin,  the  appearance  of  the  Son  of  m.an  in  the  majesty  of  eternal 
judgment,  the  wailing  of  his  crucifiers,  and  the  glorious  gathering  of  his  elect. 
In  perfect  keeping  then,  with  his  former  sayings,  and  with  the  demands  of 
the  case,  he  adds,  ^Verily  I  say  unto  you.  this  generation  shall  not  ]jass 
till  all  these  things  he  fulfJlecL^ 

Even  in  the  Old  Testament  there  is  a  very  appropriate  illustration  of  the 
meaning  of  the  word  generation  in  the  case  in  question.  '  The  Lord  heard 
the  voice  of  your  words,'  said  Moses,  '  and  was  wroth  and  sware,  saying, 
surely  there  shall  not  one  of  these  men  of  this  evil  generation  see  that  good 
land,  which  I  sware  to  give  unto  your  fathers,  save  Caleb,  the  son  of  Je- 
phunneh.'  Deut.  1:  34 — 36.  The  generation  that  came  out  of  Egypt 
saw  and  despised  the  wonders  which  God  wrought  in  delivering  them  from 
Pharaoh  and  maintaining  them  in  the  wilderness,  and  thus  became  dreadfully 
"wicked,  insomuch  that  God  destroyed  them,  and  only  suffered  their  children 
to  enter  the  promised  land.  In  like  manner,  the  generation  that  lived  in  the 
time  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  saw  and  despised  the  mighty  works  of  God. 
It  was  unquestionably  the  wickedest  generation  that  ever  lived  on  the  earth. 
Indeed  it  is  not  possible  that  any  other  generation  should  be  so  wicked  ;  for 
they  crucified  the  Lord  of  glory,  and  he  cannot  die  again.  It  was  meet, 
therefore,  that  upon  that  generation  should  come  '  such  tribulation  as  never 
was,  no  nor  ever  shall  he.''  Therefore  Christ  said  '  this  generation  shall  not 
pass'  till  the  wrath  of  God  shall  be  revealed  against  them  to  the  uttermost. 

3.  The  meaning  of  Christ's  statement  in  the  24th  of  Matthew  is,  if  pos- 
sible, still  more  clearly  determined  and  manifested  by  the  three  following 


SECOIO)  COMING  OF  CHIIIST.  281 

equivalent  statements,  which  occur  in  his  other  discourses.  (1,)  ^Verily 
I  say  unto  you^  ye  shall  not  liave  gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son  of 
man  he  come.''  Matt.  10:  23.  (2,)  '  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  there  be  some 
standing  here  ivho  shall  not  taste  of  death,  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  com- 
ing in  his  kingdom.''  16:  28.  (3,)  'If  I  will  that  he  [Jo/m]  tarry  till 
Ico77ie,  ivhat  is  that  to  theef  Jno.  21:  22.  Here  we  have  three  separate 
forms  of  the  same  prediction,  all  terminating  in  the  same  point — all  affirming 
directly  or  by  obvious  implication,  precisely  the  truth  which  we  have  found 
in  three  other  forms  before. 

Some  of  those  who  are  determined  not  to  receive  the  simple  meaning  of 
these  texts,  dispose  of  them  by  referring  them,  especially  the  two  former, 
either  to  the  transfiguration  of  Christ  on  the  Mount,  or  to  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost. But  we  ask,  where  is  the  proof  that  either  of  these  events  is  ever  called 
elsewhere  in  the  Evangelists  the  coming  of  Christ  ?  If  we  suppose  Christ  to 
have  used  in  these  three  instances,  with  reference  to  those  events,  an  expres- 
sion which  every  where  else  in  his  discourses  refers  to  the  day  of  Judgment, 
and  that  too  without  any  explanation,  we  impute  to  him  the  most  outrageous 
duplicity.  These  time-serving  interpretations  trample  not  only  on  usage  but 
on  common  sense ;  for  at  the  transfiguration,  Christ  had  not  gone  aivay ; 
so  that  it  would  have  been  nonsense  to  have  called  that  event  his  coming ; 
and  the  effiision  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  was  the  coming, 
not  of  Christ,  (for  he  had  gone  away  only  forty  days  before,)  but  of  that  -^ 
'•other  comforter''  which  he  promised  to  send  his  disciples  in  his  absence.  ? 

We  shall  perhaps  be  referred  to  2  Peter  1:  16,  as  an  instance  in  which  the 
transfiguration  is  called  the  '  coming'  of  Christ.  But  a  slight  examination  of  I 
the  passage  will  show  the  fallacy  of  the  reference.  Says  the  apostle, '  We  5 
have  not  followed  cunningly  devised  fables,  when  we  made  known  to  you  the  ^ 
power  and  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ^^,JW^u  and  where  had  he  ^ 
made  known  to  them  his  power  and  coming  ?  ObviousljTrrte-pi^xLQus.^,^  ^ 

tie  and  preaching.  Turning  to  the  first  chapter  of  that  epistle,  we  find  his 
first  and  favorite  theme  was,  Hlie  salvation  ready  to  he  revealed  in  the  last 
time^'dt  the  appearing  of  Jesus  Christ— -Hhe  grace  that  was  to  he  hr ought 
unto  the  saints,  at  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ.'  We  find  him  also  in  other 
records  of  his  preaching,  like  the  other  apostles,  prominently  presenting  the 
second  coming  of  Christ  as  the  great  hope  of  the  church  ;  e.g.,  Acts  3:  20. 
To  assure  his  readers  more  fiilb^  of  that  glorious  hope,  he  refers  them  in  his 
second  epistle  to  the  transfiguration.  ^^We  were,'  says  he,  'eye-witnesses  of 
his  majesty  on  the  holy  mount;-  i.  e.,  we  have  seen  his  spiritual  glory,  and 
we  therefore  know  what  will  be  his  povfer  at  his  promised  coming.'  Observe 
the  apostle  does  not  say  he  was  an  eye-witness  of  Christ's  corning,  but  only 
of  his  majesty.  The  transfiguration  was  an  anticipative  glimpse  of  the  power 
and  glory  0^  ih.Q  second  coming ;  and  as  such,  Peter  very  properly  referred 
to  it  for  confirmation  of  the  hopes  of  those  who  were  waiting  for  the  Lord. 

But,  supposing  it  were  possible  for  those  who  wish  to  evade  the  testimony 
in  question,  to  bring  some  plausible  proof  that  the^rs^  two  of  the  three  passages 
quoted,  refer  to  the  transfiguration  or  to  the  day  of  Pentecost — what  will  they 
say  to  the  thirds    Christ  had  predicted  Peter's  death.    Thereupon  Peter 

00 


:282  SECOND  COMl^*(i  OE  CHRTSf. 

asked  hliii  what  should  be  the  lot  of  John.  He  answered,  'If  I  will  tliat  he 
tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee?  Follow  thou  me.'  Here  is  a  plain 
intimation,  first,  that  John  should  outhve  Peter;  secondly,  that  he  should  live 
till  the  second  coming  ;  and  of  course,  thirdly,  that  the  second  coming  should 
take  place  after  the  death  of  Peter,  and  before  that  of  John.  Now  Peter 
was  crucified  long  after  the  transfiguration  and  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Of 
course,  ^till  I  come^  can  not  refer  to  either  of  those  events.  But  John  cer* 
tainly  departed  soon  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Of  course  Hill  I 
come^  must  refer  to  an  event  which  took  place  near  the  period  of  that 
destruction. 

We  may  sum  up  and  concentrate  the  testimony  we  have  examined  in  this 
section,  thus  :  Christ  designated  the  time  of  his  second  coming  in  six  different 
ways.  1.  He  placed  it  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
2.  He  instructed  his  disciples  to  expect  it,  when  they  should  see  the  fearful 
signs,  that  should  precede  and  accompany  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  as 
they  would  look  for  summer  after  the  budding  of  the  fig-tree.  3.  He  most 
solemnly  declared  it  w^ould  take  place  before  the  generation  cotemporary  with 
himself  would  pass  away.  4.  He  assured  his  disciples  that  it  would  happen 
before  their  ministry  to  the  Jews  would  be  finished*  5.  He  said  there  were 
some  standing  with  him  who  should  live  till  the  event.  6.  He  plainly  int> 
mated  that  John  should  tarry  till  his  coming. 

III.  The  expectations  of  the  primitive  church. 

There  is  abundant  proof  in  the  New  Testament  that  the  primitive  believers 
understood  the  foregoing  predictions  of  Christ  in  their  most  obvious  sense  ; 
and  accordingly  e^cpected  the  second  coming  within  the  lifetime  of  some  of 
their  own  number.  We  will  notice  a  few  specim^ens  of  their  customary  man- 
ner of  speech  concerning  the  second  coming.  '  Ye  come  behind  in  no  gift, 
waiting  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.''  1  Cor.  1:  7^  '  Our  con- 
versation is  in  heaven,  from  ivhence  also  we  look  for  the  Savior,  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.^  Phil.  3:  20.  '  Ye  turned  to  God  from  idols,  to  serve  the 
living  and  true  God,  and  to  wait  for  his  Son  from  heave7i.^  IThess.  1:  10. 
'  The  grace  of  God  .  .  .  hath  appeared,  .  .  .  teaching  us  .  .  .  that  we 
should  live  soberly,  &c.,  looking  for  that  blessed  hope  and  the  glorious  ap- 
pearing of  the  great  God  and  our  Savior  Jesus  Christ.  Tit.  2:  11 — 13. 
Such  languftge  as  this  is  perfectly  natural  on  the  supposition  that  they  under- 
stood Christ's  predictions  as  setting  the  period  of  the  second  coming  nigh  at 
hand ;  and  perfectly  unnatural  on  any  other  supposition,  as  is  proved  by  the 
fact  that  such  language  at  the  present  day,  when  the  churches  generally  be- 
lieve the  second  coming  to  be  afar  off,  is  altogether  obsolete  ;  except  among 
those  whose  theory,  like  that  of  Miller,  places  the  second  advent  very  near 
the  present  time.  Men  do  not  wait  and  look  for  a  far  distant  event.  Such 
language  implies  that  the  event  expected  is  supposed  to  be  impending. 

The  following  may  be  taken  as  examples  of  another  class  of  passages, 
which  occur  on  almost  every  page  of  the  Epistles.  '  Being  confident  of  this 
very  thing,  that  lie  who  hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you  will  perform  it  until 
the  day  of  Jesus  Christ ;  .  .  .  that  ye  may  be  sincere  and  without  ofiense 
till  iJie  day  qf  Christ.''  Phil.  1 :  6,  10.     *  I  pray  God  your  whole  spirit  and 


SECOND   COMING   OF   CHRIST.  283 

BG\il  and  body  be  preserved  blameless  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ''*  1  Thess.  5:  23.  'I  give  thee  charge,  .  .  .  that  thou  keep  this 
commandment  without  spot  and  blameless,  mitil  the  aj^fpearing  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.'  1  Tim.  6 :  13,  14.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  tho 
second  coming  of  Christ,  in  the  minds  of  those  who  use  such  language  as  this, 
was  the  event  which  stood  at  the  end  of  their  trial  of  obedience.  They  mani^ 
festly  waited  for  it  as  though  it  were  so  nigh  that  their  temporal  probation 
would  reach  '  unto'  it. 

In  the  following  instances  the  expectations  of  primitive  believers  are  ex« 
pressed  in  the  most  explicit  terms  :  '  Let  your  moderation  be  known  unto  all 
men :  The  Lord  is  at  hand.'  Phil.  4:  5.  'Let  us  consider  one  another,  &c., 
exhorting  one  another :  and  so  much  the  more  as  ye  see  the  day  approaching  J 
Heb.  10:  24,  25.  '  Ye  have  need  of  patience,  &c.,  for  yet  a  little  tvhile, 
and  he  that  shall  come  ivill  come^  and  will  not  tarry.'  Heb,  10:  36,  37, 
'  Be  patient,  therefore,  brethren,  unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord. — Stablish  your 
hearts  :  for  the  comiyig  of  the  Lord  draiveth  nigh. — The  Judge  standeth  at 
the  door.'  James  5:  7 — 9.  'The  end  of  all  things  is  at  hmid.-^The  time  is 
come  that  judgment  must  begin  at  the  house  of  Grod.'  iPet.  4:  7,  17. 

In  those  remarkable  passages  of  Paul  which  relate  to  the  resurrection,  it 
is  impossible  not  to  discover  clear  evidence  of  the  same  confident  expectation 
of  Ihe  speedy  coming  of  the  Lord.  '  We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all 
be  changed.  In  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump  ; 
for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and 
we  shall  he  changed.'  1  Cor.  15:  51,  52.  '  For  this  we  say  unto  you  by  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  that  tve  which  are  alive  and  remain  unto^he  coming  of  the 
XortZ,  shall  not  prevent  [i.e.  anticipate]  themwhich  are  asleep.  For  the  Lord 
himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the  archan- 
gel, and  with  the  trump  of  God  :  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first :  then 
we  which  are  alive  and  remain^  shall  be  caught  up  together  with  them  in  the 
clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air.'  1  Thess.  4:  15 — 17.  If  Paul  had  be. 
Ueved  the  resurrection  to  be  a  far  distant  event,  he  would  have  said,  '  We 
who  will  then  be  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  they  that  remain  alive 
shall  be  changed.*  But  in  both  the  instances,  where  such  language  might 
have  been  expected,  he  transposes  the  pronouns  we  and  they^  as  though  he 
studiously  sought  to  make  it  manifest,  that  he  expected  to  be  himself  among 
the  number  of  the  living  at  the  coming  of  the  Lord. 

We  will  not  further  multiply  citations  shomng  the  expectations  of  primitive 
believers,  but  refer  the  reader,  if  he  needs  further  evidence  on  the  subject, 
to  an  examination  of  the  whole  New  Testament.  The  position  which  we  think 
the  evidence  already  presented  abundantly  sustains,  is,  that  as  Christ  predic-> 
ted,  so  the  primitive  church  expected^  his  second  coming  within  the  lifetime 
of  their  own  generation.* 

*  It  mig-lit  be  proved  by  the  testimony  of  secular  historians,  that  the  primitive  church 
believed  the  second  coming  to  be  nigh  at  hand.  The  following  extract  Ivom  Gibbon  is  4 
specimen  of  such  testimony  : 

*  In  the  primitive  church,  the  influence  of  truth  was  very  powerfully  strengthened  by 
an  opinion,  which,  however  it  may  deserve  respect  for  its  usefulness  and  antiquily.  has 
not  been  found  agreeable  to  experience.     It  was  universally  believed^  that  the  endof  ih© 


284  SECOND  COMING  OF  CimiST. 

Let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  primitive  church  were  cotemporarics  with 
Christ — that  many  of  them  received  Christ's  predictions  of  his  second  advent 
from  his  own  Ups — that  the  language  in  which  those  predictions  were  uttered 
was  their  mother  tongue — and  that  they  were  favored  with  unexampled  mea- 
sures of  the  spirit  of  interpretation  and  revelation — in  a  word,  that  they  were 
in  the  most  favorable  circumstances  possible  for  correctly  understanding  the 
language  of  Christ.  Now  shall  we  suppose  that  they  made  a  mistake  of  eigh- 
teen hundred  years  in  their  construction  of  his  plain  predictions  ;  and  that  a 
generation  of  interpreters  living  at  the  present  day,  at  a  distance  of  eighteen 
hundred  years  from  the  time  of  Christ,  without  any  knowledge  of  the  lan- 
guage in  which  Christ  spoke,  except  what  they  get  from  translations  and 
lexicons,  and  confessedly  without  the  spirit  of  revelation,  have  risen  up  to 
set  them  right ! 

IV.  The  fulfilment  of  the  signs  predicted. 

Several  of  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  foretold  events  that  should 
go  before  the  '  great  day  of  the  Lord,'  and  should  be  signs  of  its  a^pproach. 
Thus  Malachi  says,  'Behold  I  will  send  you  Elijah  theprojjhet,  hefqre  the  com- 
ing of  the  great  and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord.''  Mai.  4:  5.  We  have  it  on 
Christ's  authority,  that  this  prediction  was  fulfilled  in  his  day.  He  says  of 
John  the  Baptist,  *  If  ye  will  receive  it,  thU  is  JElias  which  was  for  to  cor^e.'^ 
Mat.  11:  14.  Again,  Joel  says — '  I  Avill  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh  ; 
and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy ;  your  old  men  shall  dream 
dreams,  your  young  men  shall  see  visions.  And  also  upon  the  servants  and 
upon  the  handmaids  in  those  days  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit.  And  I  will  show 
wonders  in  the  heflvens  and  in  the  earth,  blood,  and  fire,  and  pillars  of  smoke. 
The  sun  shall  be  turned  into  darkness,  and  the  moon  into  blood,  before  the 
great  and  the  terrible  day  of  the  Lord  corned  Joel  2:  28 — 31.  Peter,  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  announced  that  this  prophecy  was  then  in  course  of 
fulfilment.  When  the  people  were  amazed  at  the  works  of  the  Spirit,  and 
said  of  them  that  spake  with  tongues,  '  These  men  are  full  of  new  wine,' 
Peter  said,  '  These  are  not  drunken  as  ye  suppose,  ....  but  tlds  is  that 
which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  JoeV — and  then  he  proceeds  to  recite  the 
passage  above  quoted. 

world  and  the  king-dom  of  heaven,  were  at  hand.  The  near  approach  of  this  wonderful  event 
had  been  predicted  by  the  apostles ;  the  tradition  of  it  was  preserved  by  their  earliest 
disciples;  and  those  who  understood  in  their  literal  sense  the  discourses  of  Christ  him- 
self, were  oljlig-ed  to  expect  the  second  and  g-lorious  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  in  the 
clouds,  before  that  generation  was  totally  exting-uished  which  had  beheld  his  humble 
condition  upon  earth,  and  which  might  still  be  witnesses  of  the  calamities  of  the  Jews 
under  Vespasian  and  Hadrian.  The  revolution  of  seventeen  centuries  has  instructed  us 
not  to  press  too  closely  the  mysterious  languag-e  of  prophecy  and  revelation  ;  but  as 
Jong"  as,  for  wise  purposes,  this  error  was  permitted  to  subsist  in  the  church,  it  was 
productive  of  the  most  salutary  effects  on  the  faith  and  practice  of  Christians,  who  lived 
in  the  awful  expectation  of  that  moment  when  the  g-lobe  itself,  and  all  the  various  race 
of  mankind,  should  tremble  at  the  presence  of  their  divine  Judg-e.  This  expectation  was 
countenanced  by  the  24th  chapter  of  Matthew,  and  by  the  first  epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  Ihe 
Thessalonians.  Erastus  removes  the  difficulty  by  the  help  of  nlleg-ory  and  metaphor  ; 
and  the  learned  Grotius  ventures  to  insinuate,  that,  for  wise  purposes,  the  pious  de- 
ception was  permitted  to  take  place' — GiObon's  Rome,   Vol.  1,  p.  2C1. 


SECOND   COMING   OP  CHRIST. 


285 


In  the  twenty-fourth  of  Matthew,  Christ  takes  up  the  series  of  signs  where 
Malachi  and  Joel  leave  it,  and  predicts  with  much  minuteness  the  principal 
events  of  tlie  period  between  the  day  of  Pentecost  and  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem. It  should  be  noticed  that  these  predictions,  though  mingled  togeth- 
er, are  of  two  distinct  sorts ;  1,  those  which  relate  to  events  in  the  history  of 
the  Christian  church — such  as  persecutions,  the  appearance  of  antichrists,  the 
universal  publication  of  the  gospel,  &c.;  2,  those  which  relate  to  events  in 
the  history  of  the  Jews,  and  other  nations — such  as  wars,  pestilences,  earth- 
quakes, &c.  We  naturally  look  to  external  history  for  a  record  of  these  last 
events :  and  as  the  history  of  the  downfall  of  the  Jewish  nation  is  generally 
familiar,  and  no  one  denies  that  the  fearful  physical  calamities  which  Christ 
predicted  in  the  24th  of  Matthew,  actually  came  to  pass  in  that  generation, 
we  need  not  offer  any  proof  in  relation  to  the  second  class  of  predictions.  It 
is  of  more  importance  to  direct  the  reader's  attention  to  the  evidence  we  have 
of  the  fulfilment  of  the  first  class  of  tokens — those  which,  by  their  connection 
with  the  history  of  the  church,  and  by  their  spiritual  nature,  were  more  em- 
phatically the  precursors  of  the  coming  of  Christ.  It  is  not  generally  suppo- 
sed that  those  tokens — especially  the  appearance  of  antichrist,  and  the  uni- 
versal publication  of  the  gospel —  did  actually  come  to  pass  in  that  age ;  so 
that  it  is  the  more  necessary  that  we  should  present  our  proof  in  relation 
to  them.  We  find  proof  IN  the  New  Testament,  that  antichrist  was  re- 
vealed^ and  that  the  gospel  was  published  to  all  nations^  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  The  follo^ving  synopsis  presents  Christ's  predictions  relative 
to  those  events,  with  the  record  of  their  fulfilment  in  the  opposite  column : 


PREDICTIONS. 

*  Many  false  prophets  shall  rise,  and 
shall  deceive  many.'  Matt.  24:  11. 

*  Because  iniquity  shall  abound,  the 
love  of  many  shall  wax  cold.'  Matt.  24: 
12. 

'  There  shall  arise  false  Christs,  and 
false  prophets.'  Matt.  24:  24.  [Paul 
repeats  this  and  the  preceding  predic- 
tion  in  2  Thess.  2:  8.]  '  That  day  shall 
not  come,  except  there  come  a  falling 
away  first,  and  that  man  of  sin  be  re- 
vealed.' 


*  This  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be 
preached  in  all  the  world  for  a  witness 
unto  all  nations ;  and  then  shall  the 
end  come.'  Matt.  24:  14. 


THE    FULFILMENT. 

*  Many  false  prophets  are  gone  out 
into  the  world.'  1  John  4:  1. 

'  Thou  hast  left  thy  first  love.'  Rev. 
2:  4. 

'  I  know  thy  works,  that  thou  art 
neither  cold  nor  hot.'  Rev.  3:  15. 

<  Little  children,  it  is  the  last  time : 
and  as  ye  have  heard  that  antichrist 
shall  come,  even  now  are  there  many 
antichrists  ;  whereby  we  know  that  it 
is  the  last  time.'  1  John  2:  18. 

'They  went  forth  and  preached  every 
where.'  Mark  16  :  20.  '  But  I  say, 
Have  they  not  heard?  Yes,  verily, 
their  sound  went  into  all  the  earth,  and 
their  words  unto  the  end  of  the  world.' 
Rom.  10:  18.  'The  gospel  ...  is 
come  unto  you,  as  it  is  in  all  the  world.' 
'  The  gospel  .  .  .  which  was  preached 
to  every  creature  which  is  under  heav- 
en.' Col.   1;  6,  23. 


286  '  SECOND   COMING   OF  CHRIST. 

It  may  be  noticed  that  while  Paul,  as  the  chief  preacher  of  the  primitive 
church,  announces  the  universal  publication  of  the  gospel,  Jolm^  the  disciple 
who  outlived  most  of  his  cotemporaries,  is  the  principal  reporter  of  the  facts 
which  fulfilled  Christ's  predictions  concerning  antichrist.  When  Paul  wrote 
to  the  Thessalonians,  antichrist  was  not  revealed ;  but  he  said  the  '  mystery 
of  iniquity'  ivas  already  working.  In  the  later  record  of  John,  its  manifesta- 
tion is  announced. 

The  language  of  1  John  2:  18,  is  far  more  forcible  in  the  original  than 
in  our  translation.  The  word  rendered  time^  is  hora^  from  which  the  Eng- 
lish word  liour  is  derived,  and  is  almost  invariably  elsewhere  translated  hour. 
It  should  read  thus  : — '  Little  children,  it  is  the  last  hour :  and  as  ye  have 
heard  that  antichrist  shall  come,  even  now  are  there  many  antichrists;  where- 
by we  know  that  it  is  the  last  hour.''  The  plain  meaning  of  John  is,  '  We 
are  on  the  very  verge  of  the  second  coming ;  for  the  prophecies  of  Christ 
and  Paul  concerning  the  revelation  of  antichrist,  are  already  fulfilled.' 

Now  what  is  there  in  the  nature  of  things^  to  obstruct  our  belief  of  the 
plain  testimony  before  us  ?  Forty  years  was  surely  time  enough  for  such 
workmen  as  Paul  and  his  fellow  apostles,  to  announce  to  the  whole  world  the 
approach  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  '  testimony'  which  they  had  to  bear 
to  all  nations,  was  not  a  system  of  theology,  or  a  long  series  of  discourses 
on  morality,  but  simply  the  message  of  a  long,  sent  before  him  to  forewarn 
his  subjects  of  his  approach.  Paul  took  his  station  at  Rome,  the  centre  of 
the  empire  of  the  world,  and  from  that  spot  his  voice  could  be  heard  to  the 
ends  of  the  earth.  He  says  expressly  of  the  church  at  Rome,  that  their 
'  faith  was  spoken  of  throughout  the  ivhole  tvorld.^  Rom.  1:8.  Forty  years 
was  long  enough,  too,  for  the  development  and  ripening  of  the  elements  of 
evil  within  the  church.  The  miracles  which  abounded  during  the  ministry  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  while  on  the  one  hand  they  furnished  occasion  and 
food  for  faith,  on  the  other,  naturally  excited  a  morbid  craving  for  the  mar- 
velous. Thus  while  the  work  of  salvation  was  going  on  in  the  inner  church, 
a  market  was  opened,  and  a  strong  demand  created,  among  the  crowd  of 
the  outer  court,  for  signs  and  wonders  ;  and  as  demand  always  attracts  sup- 
ply, ere  long  a  host  of  false  prophets,  false  Christs,  deceitful  wonder- 
workers— in  a  word,  speculators  on  the  credulity  awakened  by  the  miracles 
of  Christ,  appeared,  as  might  be  expected,  and  as  Christ  predicted ;  and 
we  might  infer  with  strong  probability,  from  the  nature  of  things  alone,  with- 
out the  predictions  of  Christ  or  the  testimony  of  history,  that  the  *  mystery 
•of  iniquity'  within  the  church,  kept  pace  in  its  growth,  with  the  ripening 
corruption  of  the  Jewish  nation ;  and  that  the  judgment  of  Antichrist  fol- 
lowed hard  upon  the  destruction  of  the  Holy  City. 

If  it  should  be  said  of  the  signs  we  have  particularly  noticed,  as  well  as  of 
■the  others,  that,  admitting  them  to  have  been  fulfilled  in  the  apostolic  age,  they 
.are  still  to  be  regarded  as  signs  not  of  the  second  coming,  but  merely  of  the 
.destruction  of  Jerusalem,  we  reply,  Christ  certainly  predicted  oiie  sign,  and 
that  the  most  notable  of  all,  of  which  this  cannot  be  said,  and  that  sign  was 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  itself.  It  is  a  very  great  mistake  to  suppose  that 
that  event  occupied  the  chief  place  m  Christ's  mind  when  he  uttered  the  pre- 


SECOND   COMING   OF   CHRIST.  287 

dictions  of  the  24th  of  Matthew.  His  language  plamly  shows  that  it  was  in 
his  mind  only  the  last  and  greatest  sign  of  his  invisible  coining.  The  princi- 
pal question  of  the  disciples  was,  '  What  shall  he  the  sign  of  thy  coming  f 
His  answer  was — '  Jerusalem  shall  be  destroyed  ;  the  tribulation  of  its  people 
shall  be  such  as  never  was,  and  never  shall  be  ;'  and  Hmmediately  after  the 
tribulation  of  those  days  shsiW  the  Sim  be  darkened,  ....  and  the  sign  of 
the  Son  of  man  appear.'  The  tribulation  then,  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, was  the  true  sign  of  his  coming. 

This  accords  with  the  prophecy  of  Daniel.  '  There  shall  be  a  time  of  trou* 
ble,  such  as  never  was  since  there  was  a  nation  even  to  that  same  time  ;  and 
at  that  time  thy  people  shall  be  delivered,  every  one  that  shall  be  found  writ- 
ten in  the  book ;  and  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall 
awake,  some  to  everlasting  Hfe,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.' 
Dan.  12:  1,  2.  Here  is  a  resurrection  of  many,  a  redemption  of  the  righteous, 
and  a  destruction  of  the  wicked— in  a  word,  Si,  judgment  immediately  follow- 
ing the  tribulation  that  is  without  example.  Christ  quotes  Daniel  in  his  de- 
scription of  the  tribulation ;  (Matt.  24:  15  ;)  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  he  folloAved  and  repeated  the  above  prophecy  of  Daniel  when  he  said, 
'Immediately  after  the  tribulation  of  those  days,  shall  the  sun  be  darkened,' 
&c.  The  chief  and  last  sign,  then,  of  Christ's  second  coming,  did  actually 
and  confessedly  take  place  about  forty  years  after  his  crucifixion,  and  of 
course  within  the  lifetime  of  his  own  generation ;  and  if,  according  to  his 
prediction,  his  coming  immediately  followed  that  sign,  his  word,  '  Verily  I 
eay  unto  you,  this  generation  shall  not  pass  till  cdl  these  things  he  fulfilled^ 
and  the  expectations  of  his  followers,  founded  on  that  word,  were  found  true. 

V.  The  nature  op  the  second  coming. 

It  can  be  proved  by  many  examples,  that  popular  anticipations,  and  even 
the  calculations  of  the  learned,  are  not  safe  guides  to  an  understanding  of 
the  nature  of  events  predicted  in  the  Bible.  Take  a  case  already  referred 
to,  that  of  the  mission  of  John  the  Baptist.  The  prediction  concerning  him 
was,  ^Behold  I  will  send  you  Elijah  the  prophet,  before  the  coming  of  that 
great  and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord.'  This  was  written  some  hundreds  of 
years  before  the  appearance  of  John,  and  doubtless  had  been  a  subject  of 
much  meditation  and  calculation  among  the  Jews,  both  learned  and  unlearned ; 
and  yet,  after  John  had  finished  his  ministry  with  great  notoriety,  and  with 
the  credit  of  being  '  a  prophet  indeed,'  even  Christ's  own  disciples  asked, 
'Why  say  the  scribes  that  Elias  must  first  come  ?'— a  question  that  shows  they 
had  not  yet  recognized  John  as  the  Elias.  Christ's  answer,  while  it  unequiv* 
ocally  settles  the  question  as  to  the  true  application  of  the  prophecy,  holds  up 
to  view  the  blindness  of  the  '  scribes,'  in  terms  that  are  fitted  to  humble  and 
warn  the  students  of  prophecy  in  all  generations.  ''I say  unto  you  that  Elias 
is  already  come,  AND  they  knew  him  not,  and  have  done  unto  him  tuhatso- 
ever  they  listed.''  Matt.  IT:  12.  Christ  also  himself,  in  the  mode  of  his  first 
coming,  wholly  disappointed  the  expectations  which  the  Jews  had  formed 
concerning  him,  from  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament. 

It  w^ould  not  therefore  be  a  strange  thing,  if  it  should  be  found  that  the 
second  coming  was  an  event  very  different  from  the  conceptions  of  it,  whetb- 


288  SECOND  COMING  OF  CHRIST. 

er  popular  or  learned,  which  men  have  gained  by  private  interpretations  of 
prophecy.  Christ  may  have  come  at  the  time  appointed,  though  the  scribes 
^knew  him  not.'*  Taking  the  caution  of  past  examples,  we  will  not  assume 
that  he  did  not  come,  because  popular  anticipations  were  not  fulfilled ;  but 
rather  that  those  anticipations  were  false,  and  wholly  unworthy  to  be 
placed  in  the  balance  against  the  credit  of  those  plain  predictions  which,  as 
we  have  seen,  appointed  the  time.  At  the  outset  of  our  inquiry  concerning 
the  nature  of  the  second  coming,  we  are  bound  to  take  for  granted  that  it  was 
an  event  which,  though  it  may  not  have  been  recognized  by  external  histori- 
ans, was  not  inconsistent  with  the  true  history  of  the  external  events  which 
followed  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

This  assumption  leads  us  at  once  to  the  general  conclusion — that  the  sec- 
ond coming  w^as  an  event  in  the  spiritual^  and  not  in  the  natu7xd  world. — 
Let  us  see,  then,  if  Christ's  own  language  does  not  warrant  and  require  this 
conclusion.  Before  his  description  of  his  coming,  in  the  24th  of  Mathew^, 
he  speaks  particularly  of  the  onode  of  it,  and  cautions  his  disciples  against 
delusion  in  relation  to  it,  thus :  '  If  they  shall  say  to  you.  Behold  he  is  in  the 
desert ;  go  not  forth  :  Behold,  he  is  in  the  secret  chambers  ;  beheve  it  not. 
^or  as  the  lightning  cometli  out  of  the  east^  and  shineth  even  unto  the  west ; 
80  shall  also  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  he.^  Matt.  24:  26,  27.  The 
contrast  here  presented,  is  evidently  that  between  the  limited  presence  of  the 
impostors  that  were  to  be  sought  for  in  the  desert  and  secret  chambers,  and 
the  extended  presence  of  the  Son  of  man  in  his  coming.  He  was  to  be  looked 
for,  not  as  a  material  and  circumscribed  body,  but  as  an  all-pervading  es- 
sence ;  not  to  be  found  by  searching  here  or  there,  but  to  be  seen  every 
where.  And  this  is  the  very  distinction  between  hodily  and  spiritual  pres- 
ence. Says  Paul,  'Though  I  be  absent  in  the  flesh,  yet  I  am  with  you  in 
the  spirit.,  joying  and  beholding  your  order."*  Col.  2:  5.  Here  we  have  the 
omnipresence  of  the  spirit  in  contrast  with  the  limited  presence  of  the  mate- 
rial form.  Christ's  caution,  then,  amounts  to  this : — ''My  coming  ivill  be  in 
that  wo7'ld  where  lean  be  like  the  lightning,  omniptresent — the  world  of  soids.^ 

This  exposition  of  Matt.  24:  26,  27,  is  fully  confirmed  by  a  parallel  pas- 
sage in  Luke  17:  20 — 24.  This  same  comparison  of  Christ's  coming,  to  the 
lightning,  is  there  introduced  thus  :  '  When  he  was  demanded  of  the  Phari- 
sees, when  the  kingdom  of  God  should  come,  he  answered  them,  and  said, 
The  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with  observation;  [i.  e.  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  be  observed  ivith  the  eyes;']  neither  shall  they  say,  Lo  here!  or,  Lo  there! 
for,  behold,  the  Idngdom  of  God  is  within  you."*  Putting  these  passages 
together,  (and  they  clearly  belong  together,)  we  see  that  Christ  did  not  teach 
that  his  coming  would  be  like  the  Hghtning  in  respect  to  outward  visibility, 
but  simply  in  respect  to  its  extended  presence.  That  presence  was  to  be 
looked  for  in  the  kingdom  that  is  within.  It  is  manifest  then  that  Christ's  pre- 
dictions in  the  24th  of  Matthew,  figurative  and  mystical  as  they  are,  are  ac- 
companied by  such  explanations  and  cautions  as  leave  no  reasonable  excuse 
for  the  error  of  those  who  understand  them  in  a  Hteral  and  material  sense, 
and  look  for  liis  coming  in  the  outward  world. 

If  we  bear  in  mind  the  theory  with  which  we  commenced,  viz.,  that  the 


SECOND   COMING    OF   CHRIST.  280 

judgment  of  the  second  coming  ivas  for  the  suhjects  of  the  first  gospel,  we 
shall  see  there  was  a  necessity  that  the  principal  sphere  of  its  manifestation 
should  be  in  the  spiritual  world.  That  evil  generation,  which  grew  ripe  in 
iniquity,  under  the  ministry  of  John  and  of  Christ,  and  on  which  Christ  de- 
clared should  come  all  the  righteous  blood  shed  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  the  crucifiers  of  Christ  and  the  persecutors  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem, 
had  doubtless  chiefly  passed  away,  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  So 
also  had  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  righteous  followers  of  Christ.  More- 
over there  is  evidence  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  subjects  of  the  first  gos- 
pel, were  the  spirits  of  the  previous  dead.  1  Peter  4:  6.  V-Bcrffiat  nearly  all 
the  principal  actors  in  the  drama  Avhich  terminated  in  the  second  coming,  were 
already  wdthin  the  veil,  and  there,  of  course,  was  the  fitting  place  for  the 
denouement.  A  remnant,  it  is  true,  both  of  the  believers,  and  the  rejecters 
of  Christ  in  his  first  coming,  remained  on  earth,  and  also  a  whole  generation 
of  their  descendants,  to  whom  in  a  secondary  manner  the  judgment  of  the 
second  coming  pertained.  But  as  the  spiritual  world  was  nevertheless  the 
main  scene  of  action,  the  appropriate  commencement  of  the  judgment  to  this 
secondary  remnant,  was  a  summons  to  that  scene  ;  and  that  summons,  to  the 
righteous  was  the  instantaneous  change  from  a  mortal  to  an  immortal  state, 
by  which  they  were  introduced  to  the  personal  presence  of  the  Lord  ;  to  the 
wicked,  it  was  death,  by  the  sword,  pestilence  and  famine. 

But  here  let  it  be  observed  by  way  of  caution,  that  in  placing  the  second 
coming  in  the  spiritual  and  not  in  the  natural  world,  we  give  no  place  to  that 
foolish  unbelief  which  conceives  of  nothing  but  imsubstantial  and  shadowy 
existences  and  events,  as  pertaining  to  that  world.  To  some  minds,  we  may 
seem  to  belittle  the  glorious  appearing  of  Christ,  by  referring  it  to  the  world 
of  souls  instead  of  the  world  of  bodies  ;  for  it  is  fashionable  to  regard  things 
spiritual  and  invisible,  as  little  more  than  things  visionary  and  poetical.  But 
in  our  philosophy,  mind  is  more  truly  a  substantial  entity  than  matter,  and 
there  is  less  of  poetical  nothingness  in  the  spiritual  than  in  the  natural  world. 
With  these  views,  if  we  would  magnify  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  we  must  re- 
fer it  to  a  spiritual  sphere.  We  measure  the  greatness  of  the  event  thus: — 
As  the  body  is  to  the  soul,  so  was  the  aivful  overthrow  of  Jerusalem  to  the 
second  coming  of  Christ,  The  slaughter  of  eleven  hundred  thousand  Jews, 
was  the  bodily  representative,  the  visible  and  inferior  index,  of  that  spiritual 
judgment  in  which  '  the  kings  of  the  earth,  and  the  great  men,  and  the  rich 
men  ;  and  the  chief  captains  and  the  mighty  men,  and  every  bondman  and 
every  freeman,  hid  themselves  in  the  dens  and  rocks  of  the  mountains,  and 
said  to  the  mountains.  Fall  on  us,  and  hide  us  from  the  face  of  him  that  sit- 
teth  on  the  throne,  and  from  the  wrath  of  the  Lamb;  for  the  gi-eat  day  of  his 
wrath  is  come.' 

It  will  be  objected  to  these  views  of  the  spirituality  of  Christ's  second  com- 
ing, that  the  prediction  was,  '  every  eye.  shall  see  him."^  Rev.  1:  7.  We  may 
answer  this  objection  in  three  ways — 

1.  By  referring  to  the  circumstances  and  context  of  the  prediction.  John 
is  addressing  the  churches;  and  after  speaking  of  the  grace  and  glory  which 
Christ  had  conferred  on  them,  he  says — '  Behold,  he  cometh  with  clouds  \ 


2^  SECOKD   COMTKQ  GP  CllIllST. 

and  every  eye  shall  see  him.''  This  is  naturally  to  be  interpreted  as  a  glon* 
ous  promise  to  those  whom  he  addressed;  as  if  he  had  said,  '  Christ  has  washed 
tis  from  our  sins,  and  has  made  us  kings  and  priests, — now  he  is  coming per^ 
sonally^  and  we  shall  all  see  him."*  He  adds,  'and  they  also  which  pierced 
him  /  which  implies  that  the  wieked  were  not  included  in  the  preceding 
statement. 

2.  The  language  of  John  is  necessarily  limited  by  the  nature  of  the  sub^ 
ject  concerning  which  he  speaks  ;  and  since  Christ  w^as  a  spiritual  and  not  a 
material  being,  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  must  be,  '  every  spiritual  eye 
shall  see  him.'  The  nature  even  of  Christ's  hody^  after  his  resurrection,  was 
such  that  his  appearance  to  his  disciples,  is  in  all  cases  described  in  the  very 
terms  that  are  used  in  relation  to  appearances  of  angels.  When  they  were 
assembled  together,  and  the  'doors  were  shut,^  suddenly  he  'stood  in  their 
midst  ;'  and  in  hke  manner  he  '  vanished  out  of  their  sight.''  When  he 
walked  with  them,  'their  eyes  were  holden  and  they  knew  him  not.''  In  sev- 
eral instances  he  is  said  to  have  'appeared  to  them  f  and  when  he  ascended 
up,  'behold  tivo  men  stood  by  them  in  white  apparel*''  (See  Mark  16:  9 — 14, 
Luke  24:  16,  31,  36,  John  20:  18—26,  21:  1,  Acts  1:  10.)  In  all  this 
it  is  evident  that  Christ,  after  his  resurrection,  had  the  nature  of  angels  ; 
and  the  perceptions  of  those  who  saw  him  were  not  natural,  but  spirituaL 
His  appearance  was,  in  proper  language,  a  vision^  and  none  saw  him  but 
those  whose  spiritual  eyes  were  opened.  Stephen  'being full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  saw  Jesus  standing  at  the  right  hand  of  God  ;'  (Acts  7:  55  ;)  and 
he  saw  him  because  he  was  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  with  liis  natural 
eyes,  for  the  others  saw  nothing.  So  Paul  saw  Jesus  Christ  and  talked  with 
him,  when  those  that  were  with  him  saw  no  man,  and  heard  not  the  voice. 
(See  and  compare  Acts  9:  7,  22:  9, 18,  1  Cor.  9:  1.)  John,  also,  on  the 
isle  of  Patmos,  was  'in  the  spirif  when  he  saw  the  Lord.  (See  Rev.  1: 10.) 
There  is  no  evidence  that  Jesus  Christ  has  ever  been  seen  by  any  natural 
eye  since  his  resurrection.  Indeed  he  expressly  declared  on  the  eve  of  his 
crucifixion,  '  The  world  seeth  me  no  more. ^  When  therefore  John  asserted 
that  every  eye  should  see  him,  he  must  have  had  in  his  mind  the  limitation 
which  the  nature. of  Christ,  and  this  declaration  required.* 

3.  There  is  a  sense,  in  which  it  may  truly  be  said  that  every  eye  did  see' 

*  There  are  one  or  two  facts  in  the  account  of  Christ's  intercourse  with  his  disciples 
after  his  resurrection,  which  seem  to  militate  with,  orat  least  perplex,  these  views.  It  is 
recorded  that  the  disciples  handled  hhn  as  though  hishody  was  material,  and  that  he  said 
of  himself,  '  A  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones  as  ye  see  me  have ;'  and  that  he  ate  ma- 
terial food.  But  these  facts  must  not  be  suffered  to  countervail  the  positive  evidence  we 
have  that  his  body  was  spiritual.  They  certainly  handled  no  other  body  than  that  which 
entered  a  room  when  the  door  was  shut  and  afterwards  vanished  out  of  their  sight.  These 
acts  are  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  a  material  body.  Whereas  the  act  of  eating"  ma- 
terial food  is  not  necessarily  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  a  spiritual  body.  Nor  does 
the  fact  that  he  had^esA  and  bones  imply  that  his  body  was  material ;  but  simply  that  he 
had  a  body,  and  was  not  as  they  supposed,  an  unsubstantial  grhost.  That  body  was  the 
same  in  form  as  it  was  before  his  crucifixion,  as  was  proved  by  the  disciples  handling 
him;  but  it  certainly  was  not  the  same  in  nature.  Mortal  had  put  on  immortality;  and 
that  change,  as  Paul  describes  it  in  1  Cor.  15,  makes  the  very  difference  between  the 
natural  and  the  spiritual  body.  Now  we  insist  that  a  spiritual  body  is  not  perceivable 
by  the  natural  senses,  or  at  any  rate,  by  the  natural  action  of  the  natural  senses ;  and 
therefore  that  the  disciples'  eight  and  handling  of  Jesus  was  supernatural,  or  spiritual. 


•  SECOND   OOMINQ   OV  CHRIST.  291 

CJhrist,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  He  came  at  the  beginning, 
preaching  the  approach  of  the  reig7i  of  Crod — that  kingdom  of  heaven  Avhich 
had  been  predicted  as  about  to  break  in  pieces  and  consume  all  other  king- 
doms. Of  that  kingdom  he  claimed  to  be  the  sovereign.  Before  Pontius  Pilate 
he  confessed  himself  a  king ;  and  to  the  high  priest  of  Israel  he  declared, 
^  Hereafter  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  at  the  riglvt  hand  of  power.'' 
Yet  his  title  to  the  throne  of  the  world  was  not  practically  asserted  and  man- 
ifested  in  his  first  coming.  He  came  to  preach  and  heal  and  suffer— not  to 
reign.  After  his  resurrection,  he  said  to  his  disciples,  'All  power  in  heaven 
and  on  earth.,  is  given  unto  me  ;^  and  they  thereafter  proclaimed  him  the 
royal  Son  of  Ood,  Still,  through  the  whole  period  of  the  apostoKc  age,  \m 
sovereignty  was  not  manifested  to  the  world.  Stephen  saw  him  on  the  throne, 
and  behevers  knew  that  he  was  king ;  but  the  world  still  denied  .and  despised 
his  claim.  It  was  reserved  for  the  awful  period  of  his  second  coming,  to 
make  the  world  know  its  master.  The  testimony  of  his  claim  had  gone  '  into 
all  the  world  for  a  witness  unto  all  nations.*  Pie  had  proclaimed  that  within 
the  age  of  one  generation,  he  would  come  and  prove  that  claim,  by  destroy- 
ing Jerusalem  and  dashing  in  pieces  the  Jewish  nation.  The  report  of  that 
proclamation  had  gone  with  the  gospel  into  all  the  world.  Thus  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  was  the  appointed  sign  and  proof  of  his  sovereignty.  It 
was  as  if  he  had  said  in  his  first  coming,  '  For  the  present,  imagine,  if  you 
will,  that  I  am  a  boasting  impostor ;  but  when  you  see  this  temple,  city,  and 
nation  swept  with  the  besom  of  destruction,  then  know  that  I  am  King.^ 
That  tremendous  event  came  to  pass  at  the  time  appointed ;  the  sign  he  gave 
the  world,  appeared  ;  and  all  nations  were  compelled  to  see  '  the  Son  of  man 
sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power.'  Thus  it  may  be  said  that  every  eye  saw 
iiim,  and  every  heart  knew  by  a  sure  token,  that  to  him  it  was  given  to  rule 
the  nations  with  a  rod  of  iron,  and  dash  them  in  pieces  like  a  potter's  vessel. 
The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  the  most  public  event  that  ever  happened; 
and  in  that,  all  the  tribes  of  the  earth  saw  and  trembled  at  the  majesty  of 
the  Son  of  God.* 

The  word  of  the  angels  at  the  ascension  of  Christ,  *  This  same  Jesus  which 
is  taken  up  from  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as  ye  have 
seen  him  go  into  heaven,'  (Acts  1:  11,)  is  sometimes  urged  as  an  objection 

*  If  any  one  objects  that  the^e  views  are  not  sustained  by  the  testimony  of  history,  it 
may  be  answered,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  lii?ht  of  history  on  the  remarkable  period 
immediately  following-  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  is  little  better  than  total  darkness. 
The  predictions  of  the  Bible  are  a  safe4'  guide  through  the  confusion  of  that  period  than 
any  external  history.  Secondly,  it  is  hard4y  to  be  expected  that  the  world's  historians, 
should  confess  the  world's  convictions  in  such  a  case.  All  nations  might  have  watched 
the  issue  that  was  made  up  between  Jesus  and  the  Jews  in  respect  to  his  title  to  their 
throne;  and  might  have  seen  the  decision  with  a  shuddering  conviction  of  the  truth  and 
righteousness  of  his  claim;  and  yet  the  conviction  might  have  been  so  repressed  and  con- 
cealed, that  unbelief,  like  a  returning  wave,  immediately  rolled  over  the  world's  heart 
agai»,  and  swept  trom  its  memory  and  its  history  every  trace  of  its  momentary  pang  of 
faith.  Thirdly,  there  is  evidence  in  history,  of  some  of  the  effects  produced  by  the  con^ 
viction  which  was  wrought  by  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Adam  Clarke  says, — 'It 
is  worth  serious  observation,  that  the  Christian  religion  spread  and  prevailed  mightily 
after  this  period  ;  and  nothing  contributed  more  to  the  success  of  the  gospel,  than  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  happening  in  the  very  time  and  manner,  and  with  the  very  cir'^ 
curnstancGS  so  particularly  foretold  by  our  Lord.' — Clarke  s  Cojjimcntary  on  Matt.  24:  31, 


# 


292  SECOND   COMING  OF   CIIIIIST. 

to  the  theory  of  the  second  coming  which  we  have  presented.  But  it  may 
more  properly  be  regarded  as  a  decisive  objection  to  the  popular  expectation 
oi2ipd>lic  personal  advent,  visible  to  the  world.  For  as  we  have  seen,  his 
nature  was  that  of  angels  after  his  resurrection,  and  his  ascension  was  in  the 
angehc  world,  as  was  shown  by  the  presence  of  the  angels  who  uttered  the 
above  declaration.  Moreover,  he  ascended,  not  in  the  view  of  assembled  na- 
tions, but  in  the  presence  of  a  few  of  his  disciples.  I^he  event  was  of  a  very 
private  nature ;  and,  according  to  the  word  of  the  angels,  his  subsequent 
coming  was  to  be  equally  private. 

It  must  not  be  supposed,  that  in  maintaining  that  the  second  coming  took 
plaice  in  the  spiritual,  and  not  in  the  natural  world,  we  deny  an  actual  ijer- 
sonal  appearing  to  behevers  on  earth.  We  hold  that  together  with  that 
spiritual  presence,  which  was  like  the  lightning,  and  that  presence  of  power 
by  which  he  startled  the  nations,  there  was  also  a  personal  appearing  on  the 
one  hand  to  the  whole  spiritual  world  ;  and  on  the  other,  to  the  few  believers 
who  remained  on  earth.  As  he  ascended,  so  he  descended.  As  he  ascended 
only  in  the  presence  of  his  friends,  so  he  descended  only  in  the  presence  of 
his  friends.  As  he  ascended  in  the  angehc  world,  so  he  descended  in  the 
angehc  world.  As  unbehevers  knew  nothing  of  his  ascension,  so  unbelievers 
knew  nothing  of  his  descent.  He  entered  the  house  of  this  world  '  like  a 
thief,'  unseen  by  the  world,  and  took  the  goods  he  sought,  viz.,  the  few  be- 
lievers that  remained  looking  for  him,  and  departed  leaving  the  world  asleep. 
The  abduction  of  a  few  despised  individuals  Avas  not  likely  to  excite  much  at- 
tention in  that  time  of  turbulence  and  slaughter.  The  silence  of  history, 
only  proves  that  Christ  came  as  he  ascended,  and  as  he  predicted.  Hike  a  thief 
in  the  night. '^ 

The  private  nature  of  the  second  coming  is  clearly  illustrated  by  the  par- 
able of  the  ten  virgins.    Matt.  25: 1 — 12.      That  parable  occurs  immediately 
after  the  description  of  the  second  coming  in  the  24th  chapter.     '  Then,' 
says  Christ,  '  shall  the  kingdom  of  heaven  be  likened  unto  ten  virgins,'  &c. 
We  suppose  the  virgins  to  represent  the  primitive  church,  and  the  briclegroom's 
coming  the  second  advent.     And  how  did  the  bridegroom  come  ?     Not  as 
many  seem  to  suppose,  at  mid-day ;  not  even  in  the  sight  of  all  who  w^ent 
forth  to  meet  him  ;  but  '  at  midnight  the  cry  was  made,'  and  not  only  the 
world,  but  the  foolish  virgins,  missed  the  sight  of  him.     He  appeared  only 
to  them  that  were  ready. 
VI.  Practical  bearings  of  tub  preceding  views. 
A  mere  theory,  however  magnificent,  is  not  to  be  accounted  of  much  value 
unless  it  is  available  for  the  increase  of  godliness,  and  tlie  fartherance  of  sal- 
vation ;  and  it  w^ould  be  unworthy  of  a  wise  and  benevolent  man,  to  broach 
and  insist  upon  doctrines  tending  to  unsettle  the  foundations  of  ancient  opin- 
ions, unless  he  is  persuaded  that  those  doctrines  are  not  only  true,  but  prac- 
tically profitable  and  necessary.     Under  such  a  persuasion,  the   preceding 
views  have  been  presented  ;  and  we  are  prepared  to  answer  those  who  may 
be  disposed  to  ask  concerning  them.   What  good  jmrjjose  will  be  effected  by 
eyitertaining  and  promulgating  them  ^ 

1.  Faith  in  the  word  of  God  will  he  increased.     Many  facts  might  be 


SECOND   COMING   OF  CHRIST.  29B 

presented,  showing  that  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of  Matthew,  flatly  contra* 
dieted,  perverted  and  suppressed  as  it  is,  by  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  has 
made  many  infidels,  and  greatly  embarrassed  and  weakened  the  faith  of 
many  believers.  Common  sense  will  see  and  murmur  at  the  contradiction 
between  popular  belief  and  the  plain  declarations  of  Christ,  concerning  the 
time  of  his  second  coming,  in  spite  of  all  the  ingenuity  of  commentators  ; 
and  such  murmurings  make  way  for  infidelity.  The  vicAvs  we  have  presen- 
ted, harmonize  those  plain  declarations  with  the  facts  of  history  ;  and  so  con- 
vert common  sense  from  an  enemy  to  an  ally  of  faith.  So  far  as  the  Bible 
is  concerned,  simplicity  of  interpretation  is  essential  to  that  simplicity  of 
heart,  which  is  the  'good  ground'  for  the  '  good  seed.'  Faith  withers  and 
dies  in  the  shade  of  artificial  and  labored  explanations.  The  common  belief 
concerning  the  second  coming,  makes  such  explanations  absolutely  necessary, 
not  only  in  the  twenty-fourth  of  Matthew,  but  throughout  the  New  Testament. 
Three  or  four  different '  second  comings'  must  be  conjured  up,  without  a  pre- 
tense of  authority,  to  meet  and  dispose  of  the  inconvenient  texts  which  are 
constantly  occurring  in  the  Evangelists  and  the  Epistles  ;  and  even  then, 
some  passages  are  found  that  are  utterly  unmanageable.  Now  all  this 
trouble,  with  its  evil  tendencies  and  consequences,  is  saved  by  believing  the 
testimony  of  God  in  its  most  simple  and  obvious  sense — keeping  both  eyes 
on  that  testimony,  instead  of  looking  that  way  with  one  eye,  and  toward 
human  history  and  tradition  with  the  other. 

2.  A  clear  vieiv  will  he  obtained  of  our  oivn  true  position.  So  long  as 
the  first  and  second  judgments  are  confounded,  and  the  second  coming  of 
Christ  is  regarded  as  future,  all  our  calculations  concerning  things  to  come, 
are  involved  in  inextricable  confusion.  Like  the  first  discoverers  of  the  new 
world,  who  imagined  the  land  they  had  found  was  the  coast  of  Asia,  we  are 
sailing  towards  things  unknown,  mistaking  them  for  things  well  known.  Or 
rather,  like  a  misguided  navigator,  who  in  sailing  from  the  old  to  the  new 
world,  should  pass  by  Cape  Horn,  and  continue  his  voyage  toward  Asia, 
thinking  America  still  before  him,  we  are  fancying  a  judgment  future,  that 
is  past,  and  approaching  a  judgment  that  w^e  know  nothing  of.  If  true 
charts,  and  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  earth,  are  practically  valuable  to 
the  navigator,  so  a  true  interpretation  of  prophecies,  at  least  in  regard  to 
the  great  subject  of  the  day  of  judgment,  is  practically  valuable  to  the  be- 
liever. The  first  step  toward  an  intelligent  view  of  the  last  and  now  im- 
pending judgment,  is  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  first  judgment ;  and  no 
man  can  rightly  anticipate  the  nature  of  the  '  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of 
times,'  whose  mind  is  embarrassed  b}^  confounding  it  with  the  dispensation 
of  the  primitive  church. 

3.  A  knotvledge  of  our  position  will  modify  in  many  respects  our  vieivs 
of  diity^  and  our  Jiopes.  We  will  propose  one  or  two  examples.  Of  the 
ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  it  is  said,  'As  oft  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and 
drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  [or  preach]  the  Lord's  death,  till  he  coyyieJ 
1  Cor.  11:  2(3.  Now  since  Christ  in  his  first  coming  was  a  suffering  victim^ 
but  Christ  in  his  second  coming  was  a  conquering  king^  it  is  evident  that  an 
ordinance  commemorating  his  humiliaiion  may  have  been  appropriate  before 


1294  SECOND   COMING   OF  CHRIST. 

Ills  second  coming,  and  inappropriate  afterwards.  If  we  imagine  Christ  has 
not  yet  come,  we  shall  judge,  and  that  with  Paul's  authority,  that  the 
eucharist  is  still  an  appropriate,  and  an  enjoined  ordinance.  But  if  we  be- 
lieve that  Christ's  humihation  ceased  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  that 
he  was  vindicated  and  proclaimed  King  of  the  world  by  that  event,  we  may 
conceive  that  some  other  ordinance,  more  expressive  of  victory,  would  be 
more  appropriate  to  the  present  time.  At  all  events,  Paul's  injunction  of 
the  ordinance  cannot  be  quoted  as  applicable  to  us ;  for  the  expression  '  till 
he  come^  limits  that  injunction  to  a  time  long  ago  past ;  and  if  we  continue 
the  observance  of  it,  we  must  derive  our  warrant  for  the  practice  simply  from 
its  expediency,  not  from  its  authority.  Again,  '  the  last  enemy  to  be  over- 
come is  death ;'  and  that  enemy  was  to  be  overcome  at  Chrisfs  coming. 
(See  1  Cor.  15:  26,  54.)  Christ  came  '  to  destroy  him  that  had  the  power 
of  death  ;'  and  he  commenced  the  war  by  sacrificing  himself.  His  followers 
entered  the  breach  after  him,  and  like  him  laid  doAvn  their  lives  for  the  future 
victory.  But  the  sure  word  of  promise  was,  that  within  that  generation,  at 
his  coming,  the  final  triumph  should  be  won  ;  and  they  who  remained  alive 
•till  that  time  should  not  die — nay,  should  not  'slee^^ — ^but  should  put  on  their 
immortal  nature,  by  instantaneous  change.  Now  if  we  believe  that  the 
second  coming  of  Christ  is  yet  future,  in  our  minds  the  last  enemy  is  not 
destroyed — death  is  yet  an  unconquered  antagonist  of  the  Son  of  God. — 
But  if  we  believe  the  second  coming  is  past,  we  see  Jesus  a  perfect  con- 
queror, with  death  under  his  feet ;  and  our  faith  and  hope,  according  to  the 
grace  given  us,  lay  hold  on  his  perfect  victory.  This  last  example  may  be 
taken  as  a  specimen  of  a  general  revolution  of  mind — producing  gx-eat  en- 
largement of  hope — which  will  take  place  in  any  one  who  intelligently  ex- 
changes the  common  views  of  the  second  coming,  for  those  which  we  have 
presented.  The  progress  of  God's  general  war  with  Satan,  is  not  to  be 
measured  by  the  progress  of  that  war  in  individuals.  Victories  may  have 
been  won,  which  we  as  individuals  have  not  entered  into.  A  spiritual  and 
vigorous  believer  will  look  for  encouragement  and  strength  more  to  the  gen- 
-eral  victories  that  are  already  won  in  Christ,  than  to  any  particular  victories 
«that  are  won  in  himself.  Hence,  when  he  finds  that  the  second  coming  of 
Christ,  with  all  its  train  of  promised  triumphs,  instead  of  being  yet  far  in 
ihe  future,  is  eighteen  hundred  years  in  the  past,  he  will  lift  up  his  head 
with  joyful  hope,  and  gird  himself  for  the  battle  that  is  yet  before  him  as  an 
individual,  with  the  exulting  faith  of  one  who  is  fighting  on  the  distant  wing 
K)f  an  army  which  has  already  routed  the  enemy  at  the  centre. 

4.  The  views  we  have  presented  give  important  information  of  the  present 
state  of  the  primitive  churchy  and  of  our  relation  to  it.  As  the  church  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  and  forgver  will  be  one,  CYerj  spiritual  behever  will  refer  his 
membership  to  that  original  church  which  was  built  on  the  '  foundation  of  the 
•apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone' — 
:iiiaking  little  account  of  the  carnal  distinction  between  the  '  church  militant,' 
and  the  '  church  triumphant,'  and  altogether  disallowing  the  antichristian 
notion  of  a  pluraUty  of  discordant,  and  yet  accepted  churches. '  '  Our  citizen- 
ship' and  our  church  membership  'are  in  heaven.'     Our  *  General  Assembly' 


SUCONB  COMING  OP  CHRIST.  295 

liolds  its  sessions  on  Mount  Zion.  It  is  therefore  highly  important  that  we 
should  acquaint  ourselves  as  far  as  possible,  with  the  present  condition  of  the 
'  church  of  the  first-born.'  If  we  believe  that  the  second  coming  of  Christ  is 
yet  future,  we  must  regard  that  church  as  yet '  sleeping' — yet  awaiting  the 
trump  of  the  resurrection^— yet  only  expectants  of  their  promised  thrones* 
But  believing  the  second  coming  past,  we  see  that  church  advanced  eighteen 
hundred  years  beyond  the  resurrection  and  the  judgment.  A  hundred  and 
forty-four  thousand  from  the  tribes  of  Israel,  and  an  innumerable  company 
out  of  all  nations,  have  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ,  through  the  '  dark  ages' 
which  this  world  has  seen  since  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  without  division 
or  apostacy :  and  whether  we  regard  their  numbers  or  their  glory,  we  have 
no  occasion  to  join  the  mourning  of  those,  who  by  '  looking  on  the  outward 
appearance,'  are  almost  ready  to  confess  Christianity  a  failure.  Our  church 
^ — the  oldest  in  Christendom- — has  been  neither  dead  nor  asleep ;  and  is  now 
neither  few  nor  feeble.  We  may  illustrate  its  present  condition,  and  our  re- 
relation  to  it,  thus : — Suppose  it  to  be  a  stream  commencing  with  Christ  in 
his  first  coming,  enlarging  as  it  runs  on  its  troubled  way  through  the  apos- 
tolic age,  and  at  the  second  coming  reaching  the  tranquil  level  of  eternity. 
Still  it  flows  onward,  deepening  and  widening  as  it  goes,  and  at  the  distance 
of  eighteen  hundred  years,  it  has  become  a  broad  and  mighty  river.  Now 
shall  we,  as  tributary  streams  seeking  a  junction  with  this  river,  take  a  long 
backward  circuit,  and  try  to  enter  somewhere  before  the  second  coming,  or 
shall  we  make  our  way  toward  it  by  the  shortest  course,  and  enter  where  it 
is  broadest  and  deepest  ?  We  leave  the  answer  to  common  sense,  and  to  the 
faith  of  God's  elect. 

5.  These  views  afford  the  most  effectual  means  for  sn/ppi-essing  many 
forms  of  pernicious  error.  One  strong  hold  of  Universalists,  in  fact  the 
most  indispensable,  is  the  denial  of  a  future  and  eternal  judgment.  By  de- 
monstrating, as  they  easily  can,  to  common  sense,  (not  perhaps  to  tradition- 
ary bigotry,)  that  the  judgment  most  frequently  predicted  and  alluded  to  in 
the  New  Testament,  was  to  come  within  the  lifetime  of  the  generation  con- 
temporary with  Christ,  they  stop  the  mouths  of  those  who  preach  a  future 
judgment ;  and  then,  following  up  their  advantage,  they  virtually  nullify  the 
whole  testimony  of  the  Bible  concerning  the  judgment,  with  its  rewards  and 
punishments,  by  referring  it  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  subse- 
quent temporal  curses  of  the  Jews,  and  blessings  of  the  Gentiles.  Our 
theory  meets  and  answers  them,  on  both  these  points.  First,  we  concede  the 
manifest  truth  of  their  primary,  position,  viz  :  that  the  judgment  expected 
by  the  primitive  church,  came  to  pass  at  the  time  appointed,  within  that 
generation.  But  then  we  prove  to  them  that  that  was  only  a  judgment  of 
the  subjects  of  the  first  gospel,  the  judgment  of  the  .  Jews,  terminating  the 
Mosaic  dispensation ;  and  we  point  them  to  predictions  of  another  and  final 
judgment,  to  come  after  the  times  of  the  Gentiles.  By  developing  the 
scriptural  division  of  the  judgment  into  two  acts,  we  can  grant  all  they  claim, 
and  yet  prove  a /witzire  judgment.  Secondly,  we  show,  in  relation  to  the 
first  judgment,  that  the  outward  events  which  they  say  fulfilled  the  predic- 
tions of  that  transaction,  were  only  visible  signs,  bearing  no  greater  proper- 


a 


296  SECOND   COMING   OP  CHRIST. 

tion  of  importance  to  the  actual  judgment  of  the  second  commg,   which  fol- 
lowed them  in  the  invisible  world,  than  the  body  bears  to  the  soul. 

Again,  our  doctrine  strikes  a  fatal  blow  at  all  those  forms  of  modern  fanat- 
icism which  have  for  their  basis  a  testimony,  that  Christ  has  lately  come  or 
is  now  coming  the  second  time.  Paul  says,  '  Though  an  angel  from  heaven 
preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  we  have  preached  unto  you,  let 
him  be  accursed.'  Paul's  gospel  was  that  which  Christ  preached  before  him, 
and  one  main  item  of  its  tidings  was,  ''Tlie  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand — 
this  generation  shall  see  the  second  coming  of  the  Son  of  man,  in  the  power 
and  glory  of  eternal  judgment.'  Now  Swedenborg  preached  that  the  second 
coming  of  Christ  took  place  in  1757 — (1680  years  after  the  time  appointed) 
— and  that  he  was  himself  an  eye-witness  of  the  transaction.*  Ann  Lee,  the 
Mother  of  the  Shakers,  preached  that  the  second  coming  took  place  in  1770, 
and  that  Christ  made  his  appearance  in  her  person. f  Many  similar  procla- 
mations have  been  made  from  time  to  time,  along  the  whole  period  of  Chris- 
tian history,  and  especially  since  the  Heformation.  The  latest  follower  of 
this  fashion  that  has  come  to  our  notice,  is  Professor  Andreas  Bernardus 
Smolnikar,  who  teaches  that  Christ  appeared  in  1836,  and  appointed  him 
^Ambassador  Extraordinary.' J  Of  all  these  we  may  say  fearlessly,  as  Paul 
says,  '  though  they  be  angels  from  heaven,  let  them  be  accursed' — they  have 
denied  the  word  of  God.  Together  with  these,  another  class  of  visionaries 
and  impostors,  less  presumptuous,  but  equally  foolish,  may  be  noticed.  We 
refer  to  those  who  either  by  pretended  revelation,  or  by  interpretation,  have 
undertaken  from  time  to  time  within  the  last  few^  centuries,  to  prophesy  of 
the  near  approach  of  the  second  advent.  The  latest  and  most  notable  spe- 
cimen of  this  class,  is  William  Miller,  who,  at  this  time,  is  confidently  pro- 
claiming that  1843§  is  the  appointed  year  of  the  second  coming.  The  in- 
telligent reader  will  not  seek  protection  for  himself,  or  for  the  church  of  God, 
from  the  subtleties  and  snares  of  these  deceivers,  in  ignorance  and  contempt 
of  their  doctrines,  but  in  correct  and  clear  views  of  the  great  subject  which 
they  mystify  and  abuse.  The  protectors  of  the  orthodoxy  of  the  church  will 
surely  spend  their  strength  for  nought,  in  their  labors  to  repel  and  quench 
heresies  on  the  subject  of  the  second  coming,  so  long  as  they  shrink  from  a 
manly  and  thorough  investigation  of  that  subject,  and  a  bold  confession  of 
the  truth  to  which  such  an  investigation  leads.  We  believe  the  views  pre- 
sented in  this  article,  open  a  summary  and  sure  way  to  an  utter  extinction 
of  those  heresies.  As  Christ  declared  that  the  day  of  his  appearing  should 
*  come  as  a  snare  upon  all  them  that  dwell  upon  the  face  of  the  whole  earth  ;' 
so  Ave  believe  the  true  doctrine  concerning  that  appearing,  will  finally  be 
found  a  snare,  in  w^hich  nearly  all  the  heresies* of  Christendom  will  be  taken 
and  destroyed. 

6.  These  views  throio  much  light  on  the  history  of  what  is  commonly  called 
the  Christian  church.  They  prove  at  the  outset,  that  that  church  has  had 
at  the  very  heart  of  its  system  of  faith,  ever  since  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 

*  See  '  Compendium  of  the  True  Christian  Reiig-ion,'  p.  162. 

+  See  *  Summary  View  of  the  Millennial  Church,'  p.  5. 

tSee  'Signs  of  the  Times,'  Vol.  I.  Tsfo.  12. 

"^iThis  article  was  written  and  published  several  years  previous  to  the  above  date. 


SECOND  COMING  OF  CHRIST.  297 

lem,  an  enormus  error — ^nothing  less  than  a  palpable  denial  of  the  plainest 
word  that  Christ  ever  spoke — and  that  word  relating  to  the  greatest  of  all 
the  subjects  of  faith,  viz.  the  day  of  Judgment.     It  is  commonly  believed  that 
the  church  of  the  first  century  after  the  apostles,  was  nearly  as  pure  as  the 
primitive  church  ;  and  that  its  damnable  degeneracy  did  not  commence  until 
the  fourth  or  fifth  century.     But  we  see  that  a  '  strong  dekcsion,^  to  say  the 
least,  commenced  its  work  in  the  very  first  successors  of  the  primitive  church ; 
and  we  are  led  at  once  to  draw  a  very  broad  line  of  distinction  between  the 
church  that  lived  before,  and  that  which  lived  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem.    How  broad  that  line  ought  to  be,  we  shall  best  learn  by  appealing 
*  to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony.'      Let  it  be  remembered  that  Christ  and 
Paul  repeatedly  predicted  a  '  great  falling  away,'  as  one  of  the  last  signs  of 
Christ's  coming — that  the  later  writings  of  John  record  the  fulfilment  of  those 
predictions — that  Peter  specially  characterizes  the  apostates,  as  doubting  and 
forsaking  the  promise  of  the  second  coming,  (2  Pet.  3.  4,) — and  on  the  oth- 
er hand,  the  faithful  in  Christ  are  constantly  characterized  as  Hvaiting^  for 
the  Lord.     In  the  last  hour,  then,  of  the  apostolic  age,  there  were  co-existing, 
a  true  church  and  an  apostate  church ;  and  the  prime  difference  between 
them  was,  that  one  of  them  was  '  looking'  for  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  the 
other  was  not.*     Now  the  promise  was,  that  '  to  them  that  looked  for  him,' 
he  would  appear  and  take  them  aivay.     So  then  they  that  were  left  after  his 
appearing,  were  the  apostates  who  looked  not  for  him  ;  and  they  therefore 
evidently  constitute  the  first  link  of  the  chain  which  connects  the  Christianity 
of  subsequent  ages,  with  the  Christianity  of  the  apostles.     Indeed  this  might 
be  inferred  from  the  likeness  of  their  faith  to  that  of  their  successors.     As 
they  deferred,  and  practically  forsook  the  promise  of  the^coming  of  the  Lord, 
so  has  the  church,  commonly  called  Christian,  done  in  all  ages  since.      We 
say  then,  that  church  is  a  successor,  not  of  the  true  primitive  church,  hut  of 
that  apostate  moiety  which  forsook  the  promise  of  the  second  coming,  and 
tvas  rejected  of  the  Lord  ;  and  its  pretense  of  authority  inherited  from  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  is  j^roved  to  be  an  imposition.     Thus,  instead  of  impotently 
attempting  to  hew  away  such  branches  as  Popery,  Episcopacy,  &c.,  we  lay 
the  ax  at  the  root  of  that  accursed  tree  of  spurious  Christianity,  which  has 
overshadowed  and  blasted  the  earth  through  these  eighteen  hundred  years ; 
— thus  too,  we  break  the  arrows  of  the  infidels,  who  have  ever  sought  to 
pierce  Christ  by  shooting  at  the  church  of  the  first  centuries.     Christ  is  in  no 
way  responsible  for  the  church  that  has  assumed  his  name  since  his  second 

*  The  reader  will  observe  that  this  is  the  very  distinction  between  true  believers  and 
apostates,  which  Christ  predicted  in  Matt.  24:  45-51.  That  parable  was  framed  for  the 
very  purpose  of  forewarning-  ihe  disciples  of  the  dang-er  of  unbelief  in  relation  to  his  sec- 
ond coming-.  The  faithful  servant  is  represented  as  watching-  and  ready,  while  the  evil 
servant  says,  *  My  Lord  delayeth  his  coming-.'  The  moral  consequences  of 'looking' 
to?-  the  coming  of  the  Lord  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  forsaking-  the  promise  on  the  other — 
might  easily  be  traced  out,  and  shown  to  be  such  as  would  make  the  wide  difference 
between  the  faithful  and  reprobates.  Gibbon,  in  the  note  on  our  283d  page,  strggcsts  an 
idea  that  is  undoubtedly  true;  and  not  the  less  valuable  for  the  sneering  sarcasm  with 
which  it  is  accompanied.  The  great  secret  ot  the  vigorous  faith  and  daring  enterprise 
of  the  primitive  church,  unquestionably  is  to  be  found  in  their  expectation  of  a  speedy 
Judgment. 

3T 


&9S  SECOND   COMING   OF   CHRIST. 

coming.  The  primitive  and  now  heavenly  church,  has  never  laid  aside  01* 
transferred  its  authority ;  and  it  never  has  had  and  never  will  have  a  suc- 
cessor.* 

7.  TTiese  views  hold  up  in  the  sight  of  all  nations^  the  ensign  of 
the  Jcingdom  of  God;  and  pointing  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
as  an  index  of  the  poiver  and  the  policy  of  that  kingdom^  suggest  a 
tremendous  tuarning  of  the  conscque7ices  of  resisting  the  Lord's  anointed. 
Instead  of  looking  into  the  dim  and  distant  future  for  the  commencement  of 
that  dynasty  which  shall  ultimately  supersede  all  national  combinations,  we 
look  backward,  and  behold  the  standard  of  the  world's  appointed  Sovereign, 
already  planted  on  the  territory  to  be  conquered,  and  waving  in  triumph  over 
its  first  and  bloodiest  field  of  battle.  The  '  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  in  his 
KINGDOM,'  like  the  gospel,  was  '  to  the  Jew  first,^  but  it  will  be  '  cdso  to  the 
Q-entile.^  The  same  issue  which,  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  was  made  be- 
tween Jesus  Christ  and  the  Jews,  on  his  title  to  the  throne,  and  which  was 
decided  by  the  destruction  of  their  capital  city,  and  the  extinction  of  their 
national  existence,  will,  in  due  time,  be  made  between  him  and  every  other 
nation  under  heaven.  As  the  period  appointed  for  the  trial  of  that  issue 
hastens  onward,  it  will  be  well  for  the  potentates  and  politicians  of  the  world 
to  look  into  the  history  of  the  trial  that  is  already  past,  and  '  count  the  cost' 
of  a  Avar  with  the  kingdom  of  Grod*  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  viewed 
as  the  sign  of  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  to  assume  the  government  of  the 
world,  gives  an  awful  emphasis  to  the  admonition — 'Be  tvise  now.,  therefore,^ 
0  ye  kings  ;  he  instructed^  ye  judges  of  the  earth.  Serve  the  Lord  with 
fear,  and  rejoice  with  trembling.     Kiss  the  Son,  lest  he  he  angry,  and  ye 

*In  these  remarks  we  would  not  be  understood  as  denjing-  that  there  have  been  gen^ 
nine  believers  in  the  world  since  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But  we  bear  in  mind 
that  *  the  two  witnesses'  of  Christ  have  been  'clothed  in  sackcloth,'  not  in  priestly 
robes;  and  we  look  for  the  *  remnant  of  the  seed'  of  ihe  primitive  church,  not  among^ 
those  who  claim  authority  inherited  from  the  apostles,  but  among-  the  heretics  whom 
they  have  persecuted.  Our  ax  is  laid  only  at  the  root  of  that  ostensihle  organized  Chris- 
tianity which  pretends  to  be  the  lineal  descendant  of  the  primitive  church,  which  in  the 
sixth  century  took  the  name  of  Popery,  and  since  the  Reformation  has  branched  offinto 
Episcopacy,  Methodism,  &c.  This  kind  of  Christianity  claims  inhei'itance  from  the 
apostles,  under  a  will  which  is  said  to  be  recorded  in  Church  History.  We  dispute  the 
will,  first,  on  the  g-round  that  the  party  which  is  supposed  to  have  made  the  will,  is  yet 
alive,  and  fully  competent  to  manage  its  own  property ;  and  secondly,  on  the  g-round 
that  even  if  it  were  dead,  we  find  on  the  only  record  that  is  admissible  in  the  case,  viz., 
the  Bible,  another  will,  excluding- the  claimants  in  question  from  all  inheritance.  We 
mig-ht  moreover  deny  the  existence  even  of  the  will  said  to  be  recorded  in  Church  His^ 
lory  5  foi'  the  only  warrant  we  find  for  the  common  belief  that  the  first  g-eneration  of  the 
Fathers  were  the  commissioned  or  the  commended  successors  of  the  apostles,  is  the 
Conjecture  of  interested  historians,  founded  on  very  obscure  and  suspicious  traditions. 
Our  conjecturCj  founded  on  the  testimony  of  scripture,  is  that  these  men  had  *  no  oil  iti 
their  lamps'  when  the  brideg-room  came;  and  being  left  in  outer  darkness,  became  blind 
leaders  of  the  blind.  We  find  no  trace  of  their  commissions  in  the  Bible.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  manifest,  that  all  the  provisions  of  Christ  and  of  the  apostles,  for  the  earthly 
org-anization  of  the  church,  and  appointment  of  its  officers,  terminated  in  the  second 
coming-.  Christ's  commission  of  his  disciples,  with  the  attendant  promise,  *  Lo  I  am 
with  you  aKvaySj  cveii  vnto  the  end  of  the  \_agc,'']  in  consequence  of  a  mistranslation  of 
the  last  word,  ha?^  come  to  be  regarded  as  a  g-eneral  commission  for  all  who  choose  to 
preach,  even  io  the  end  of  <he  world.  But  it  evidently  extends  no  farther  than  th^ 
isecond  coming* 


SECOND   COMING    OP   CHRIST.  299 

perish  from  the  way^  ivhen  Ms  urath  is  Icindledhut  a  little.  Blessed  are  all 
they  who  'put  their  trust  in  him.'' 

SCRIPTURE    TESTIMONY. 

For  the  convenience  of  those  who  may  wish  to  investigate  the  subject  of 
the  preceding  article,  we  have  collected  and  arranged  under  several  heads, 
references  to  most  of  the  passages  relating  to  it  in  the  New  Testament.  A 
careful  examination  of  them,  we  believe,  wall  satisfy  every  candid  mind— 

1,  that  the  expressions,  *  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God,'  of  Uhe  king- 
dom of  heaven,'  '  the  coming  of  the  Lord,'  of  '  Christ,'  '  the  coming  of  the 
great  day,'  of  '  the  day  of  God,'  of  '  that  day,'  &c.,  all  refer  to  one  event ; 

2,  that  the  invisible  spiritual  world  was  the  sphere  of  the  manifestation  of 
that  event ;  3,  that  it  occurred  within  the  lifetime  of  some  who  were  eotem' 
poraries  with  Christ  in  his  first  appearance  ;  4,  that  the  precise  time  of  its 
occurrence  was  not  revealed  in  the  predictions  concerning  it ;  5,  that  it  was 
preceded  by  a  wide-spread  announcement  of  its  approach ;  6,  that  it  was 
preceded,  and  its  near  approach  betokened,  by  the  appearance  of  many  an- 
tichrists, false  prophets,  apostasies  and  delusions ;  7,  that  it  introduced  a 
new  dispensation,  far  surpassing  in  grace  and  glory  that  which  preceded  it. 

I.  The  nature  of  the  kingdom  introduced  hy  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 
Luke  17:  20—24 ;  compare  Matthew  24:  23—27,  2  Peter  3:  10,  &c. 
Luke  20:   34—36 ;  comp.  Matt.  22:   30,    Mark  12:  25,    1  Cor.  7:  29, 

Matt.  19:  12  ;  also  Luke  24:  31,  Matt.  27:  52,  53,  Phil.  3:  11. 

John  3:  3  ;    comp.    1  Cor.  15:  50. 

John  14:  19,  18:  36,  Acts  7:  55—56  ;  comp.  Acts  9:  3—5,  2  Kings 
6:  17. 

ICor.  2:  9—14  ;   comp.  1  Cor,  15:  44,  &c.   1  Cor.  15:  50—53. 

II.  The  limitation  of  the  time  of  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 

Mark  1:  15 ;  comp.  Daniel  9:  24—27,'  Matt.  3:  2,    4:  17,    10;  7,  ^g. 

Matt.  10:  23  ;  comp.  Dan.  7:  13—27. 

Matt.,  16:  27,  28  ;  comp.  Mai.  3:  1—3,  17, 18,  4:  1—6,  2  Tim.  4:  1,  2, 

Matt.  24:  34,  35  ;  comp.  Matt.  24:  1—31,  Mark  13:  30,  Luke  21:  32, 
Luke  9:  27,  16:  16,  23:  28—30.  The  bearing  of  this  last  quotation  will 
be  seen  by  examining  the  references  following :  comp.  Rev.  6:  12-— 17,  with 
Bev.  1;  1—3,  and  4:  2. 

John  21:  22 ;    comp.  Rev.  1:  10—18. 

Acts  17:  30—31 ;  comp.  Matt.  3:  2,  &c. 

Rom.  13:  11—13  ;  comp.  Luke  1:  77—79,  21:  34,  1  Thess.  5:  4=— 8, 
2  Pet.  1:  19,  1  John  2:  8,  &c. 

Rom.  16:  20  ;    comp.  Gen.  3:  15,    1  Pet.  1:  13,  Rev.  12:  7—11, 

ICor.  10:  11 ;    comp.  Matt.  24:  3,  Heb.  9:  26. 

Phil  4:  5,    Heb.  10:  24,  25 ;    comp.  Acts  17:  30,  31. 

Heb.  10:  36,  37 ;    comp.  James  5:  7-9,    Luke  21:  19, 

James  5:  7—9 ;  comp,  Heb,  12:   22,  23. 

IPet.  4:  4,  5,  7,  17,  Rev,  1:  1;  comp.  Rev,  1:  3,  T,  2:  5,  la, 
2  Thess.  2:  8. 


300  SECOND   COMING   OF   CHRIST. 

Note.  In  Rev.  1:  1,  3,  we  are  expressly  informed  that  the  apocalypse  is 
a  prophetic  record  of  events  then  nigh  at  hand.  Bearing  in  mind  this  inti- 
mation, the  character  of  the  whole  book,  as  a  description  of  the  events  pre- 
ceding, accompanying  and  following  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  will  easily 
be  discovered.  The  first  and  most  frequently  repeated  prediction  of  the 
book  is  thus  recorded  in  the  7th  verse  of  the  first  chapter :  '  Behold,  he 
Cometh  mth  clouds ;  and  every  eye  shall  see  him,  and  they  also  which 
pierced  him ;  and  all  kindreds  of  the  earth  shall  wail  because  of  him.'  See 
Rev.  2:  5, 16,  25,  3:  3—11,  22:  7,  12,  20. 

III.  The  uncertainty  of  the  time. 

Mark  13:  32—37 ;    comp.  Matt.  24:    36—51,    25:  1—13,    Luke  12: 
35-40,  21:  34-36. 
Acts  1:  6,  7,  1  Thess.  5:  1-3  ;  comp.  Matt.  24:  37-39. 
2  Pet.  3:  10,     Rev.  3:   3. 

IV.  The  previous  announeement  of  the  kingdom. 
Matt.  24:  14  ;  comp.  Mark  13:  10. 

Matt.  28:  19,  20 ;  comp.  Mark  16:  15. 

Mark  16:  19,'  20,  Acts  1:  8,  Rom.  15:  19,  Col.  1:  5,  6,  23  ;  comp. 
Mark  16:  15. 

V.  Antichrists,  false  prophets^  apostasies,  delusions,  ^c. 

Matt.  24:  4-12,  24 ;    comp.  Mark  13:  5,  6,  21,  22,     Luke  21:  8,  &c. 

Luke  18:  8,  Acts  20:  28-30,  2  Thess.  2:  3-10,  ITim.  4:  1,  2, 
2  Tim.  3:  1-5,     2  Tim.  4:  3-4,     Titus  1:  10,  11,  16. 

2  Pet.  2:  1-3 ;  comp.  2  Thess.  2:  8. 

2Pet.  3:3,  4,  IJohn  2:  18,  26,  4:1-3,  2  John,  7,  8,  Jude4, 
17-19,    Rev.  2:  2-4,  20,     3:  1,  15. 

VI.  Intimations  concerning  the  accompaniments,  privileges,  and  glory 
of  the  new  dispensation,  anticipated  hy  primitive  believers,  and  introduced 
hy  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 

Matt.  11:  11 ;  comp.  Luke  7:  28. 

Matt.  19:  28 ;  comp.  Luke  22:  29,  30,  1  Cor.  6:  2,  3,  Rev.  2:  26,  27, 
3:  21,  &c. 

Matt.  25:  31,  32 ;  comp.  Matt.  3:  10-12,  Mai.  3: 18,  4:  1-6,  ICor.  3: 
13-15,  &c. 

Matt.  24:  13 ;  comp.  Rom.  13:  11,  Heb.  9:  28,  1  Pet.  1:  13,  Rev.  2: 
10-25,    3:  11,  &c. 

Luke  21:  28,  Acts  3:  19-21,  Rom.  16:  20,  1  Cor.  1:  7,  8,  4:  4,  5, 
15:  22,  23  ;    comp.  John  5:  25,  28,  29,  &c. 

Phil.  1:  6-10 ;  comp.  1  Thess.  3:  13. 

Phil.  3:  20,  21 ;    comp.  1  Cor.  15:  51,  &c. 

Col.  3:  4 ;  comp.  1  Thess.  2:  19,  20. 

IThcss.  1:  9,  10,  4:13-18,  5:23,  2  Thess.  1:  6-10,  1  Tim.  6: 
13-15,  2  Tim.  1:  12,  4:  1,  2,  8,  Titus  2:  11-13,  Ileb.  9:  28,  IPet.  1: 
3-7,13,    5:4,    2  Pet.  3:  11-14,    1  John  2:  28,    3:2,    Jude  24,  25. 


§  41.    STUART  ON  ROMANS  13:  11. 

"  It  is  high  time  to  awake  out  of  sleep :  for  now  is  our  salvation  nearer  than 
when  we  believed.^'  Rom.  13:  11. 

"  What  is  the  salvation,  which  is  nearer  than  when  Christians  at  Rome  first 
believed  ?  Tholuck,  and  most  of  the  late  commentators  in  Germany,  suppose 
that  the  apostle  expected  the  speedy  advent  of  Christ  upon  earth  a  second  time, 
when  the  day  of  glory  to  the  church  would  commence.  Accordingly,  they  rep- 
resent him,  here  and  elsewhere,  as  exhorting  Christians  to  be  on  the  alert,  con- 
stantly expecting  the  approach  of  such  a  day.  In  support  of  this  view,  Tholuck 
appeals  to  Phil.  4:  5,  1  Thess.  5:  2,  6,  Rev.  22:  12.  Such  views,  and  such  a 
mode  of  representation,  seem  at  present  to  be  widely  diffused  in  Germany,  and 
to  be  held  even  by  those  who  are  strenuous  defenders  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
apostles.  But  how  the  words  of  the  apostles,  when  thus  construed,  can  be  made 
consistent  with  themselves,  (not  to  speak  of  other  difficulties  arising  from 
the  consideration  that  they  were  inspired,)  is  more  than  I  am  able  to  see.  The 
very  passage  referred  to,  in  the  first  epistle  to  the  church  at  Thessalonica,  was 
understood  by  the  Thessalonians  in  the  same  manner  as  Tholuck  and  others  un- 
derstand it ;  but  this  interpretation  was  formally  and  strenuously  corrected  in 
2 Thess.  II.  Ts  it  not  enough  that  Paul  has  explained  his  own  words?  Who  can 
safely  venture  to  give  them  a  meaning  different  from  what  he  gives?  Then  as 
to  Rev.  22:  12;  how  is  it  possible,  that  the  writer,  who  had  just  made  an  end  of 
predicting  a  long  series  of  events,  that  should  happen  before  the  day  of  glory, 
one  of  which  is  to  occupy  a  thousand  years,  can  be  supposed  to  have  believed 
that  all  this  was  to  take  place  during  that  very  generation  in  which  he  lived? 

I  only  add  here,  (for  this  is  not  the  place  to  enter  into  a  long  discussion,)  that 
it  is  incredible  that  the  apostles,  if  enlightened  by  supernatural  influence,  should 
not  have  been  taught  better  than  to  lead  the  whole  Christian  church  to  a  vain 
and  false  hope  about  the  appearance  of  Christ ;  which,  when  frustrated  by  time 
and  experience,  would  lead  of  course  to  general  distrust  in  all  their  declarations 
and  hopes.  As  the  usus  loquendi  does  not  demand  such  an  exegesis ;  as  the  na- 
ture of  the  apostle's  knowledge  and  mission  does  not  allow  it ;  and  as  Paul  has 
expressly  contradicted  it  in  in  2  Thess.  ii. ;  so  I  cannot  admit  it  here,  without 
obtaining  different  views  from  those  which  I  am  now  constrained  to  entertain. 

I  must,  therefore,  refer  soteria  \salvation'\  to  the  spiritual  salvation  which  be- 
lievers were  to  experience  when  transferred  to  the  world  of  everlasting  light  and 
glory.  And  so  construed,  the  exhortation  of  Paul  amounts  to  this  : — '  Christian 
brethren,  we  have  been  brought  out  of  darkness  into  marvelous  light ;  let  us  act 
in  a  manner  that  corresponds  with  our  condition.  We  are  hastening  to  our 
retribution  ;  every  day  brings  us  nearer  to  it ;  and  in  prospect  of  the  reward 
which  now  appears  in  sight,  as  we  approach  the  goal  of  human  life,  let  us  act 
with  renewed  effort  as  duty  requires.'  "   Stuart^s  Commentary,  p,  487. 

REMARKS. 

It  is  interesting  to  learn  that  the  truth  on  the  subject  of  the  second  com- 
ing, is  forcing  its  way  to  general  acknowledgment  in  Germany.  That  is  the 
land  where  we  might  expect,  that  common  sense  and  somid  criticism  would 
first  triumph  over  tradition.  There  the  Reformation  broke  forth ;  and  there 
biblical  research  has  been  pursued  to  an  extent  altogether  unparalleled  in    // 


V 


802  STUART   ON  ROMANS   13:    11. 

^  any  other  nation.  Biblical  critics  in  this  country  and  England,  are  obliged 
to  sit  at  the  feet  of  the  German  commentators,  notAvithstanding  the  rationalism 
and  mysticism  with  which  they  are  charged.  We  apprehend  that  the  free 
and  even  skeptical  atmosphere  of  the  German  schools,  is  more  favorable  to 
sound  interpretation,  so  far  as  mere  verbal  criticism  is  concerned^  than  the 
pressure  of  New  England  orthodoxy.  We  must  not  forget  however,  that  the 
German  commentators,  when  they  leave  philology,  and  begin  to  speculate  on 
the  subject  of  the  second  coming,  directly  fall  into  the  old  errors.  Their 
doctrine  is,  that  the  apostles  expected  the  second  coming  within  their  own 
lifetime,  but  that  they  were  in  a  mistake  ! 

^  Stuart's  way  of  disposing  of  the  passages  appealed  to  by  Tholuck,  deserves 
a  few  remarks.  He  says  that  1  Thess.  5:  2,  6,  '  was  understood  by  the  Thes^ 
salonians  in  the  same  manner  as  Tholuck  and  others  understand  it ;  [i.  e.  as 
indicating  the  apostle's  expectation  of  a  speedy  second  coming ;]  hut  this  in- 
terpretation  was  formally  and  strenuously  corrected  in  2  Thess.  2.'  Let  us 
see  if  this  is  true.  The  correction  referred  to  reads  thus  : — 'We  beseech  you, 
brethren,  .  .  .  that  ye  be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind,  or  be  troubled,  neither  by 
spirit,  nor  by  word,  nor  by  letter  as  from  us,  as  that  the  day  of  Christ  is  at 

^  hand.*  Let  no  man  deceive  you  by  any  means  ;  for  that  day  shall  not  come, 
except  there  come  a  falling  away  first,  and  that  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the 
son  of  perdition,  who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called 
God,'  &c.  2  Thess.  2:  1—4.  It  appears  from  this  passage  that  the  Thessa- 
lonians  were  in  danger  of  being  led  by  some  deceiver,  to  believe  that  the  day 
of  Christ  was  immediately  impending.  They  were  '  shaken  in  mind  and 
troubled,'  as  thousands  at  the  present  time  are  shaken  and  troubled  by  the 
alarming  imagination  that  Christ  is  to  come  within  a  few  months.  In  correct- 
ing this  impression  the  apostle  simply  assured  the  Thessalonians  that  the  ex- 
pected event  could  not  take  place  immediately^  because  its  most  important 
precursor  had  not  appeared.  He  said  nothing  affirmatively  about  the  time 
of  it,  but  only  negatived  the  imagination  of  an  immediate  coming.  His  lan- 
guage comports  as  well  with  the  supposition  that  the  event  was  but  ten  years 
distant,  as  with  the  common  theory  that  it  is  yet  future,  if  we  only  suppose 
that  within  ten  years  the  man  of  sin  might  have  been  revealed.  If  he  wrote 
to  the  Thessalonians  in  A.  D.  54,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  at  least  sixteen 
years  of  the  period  designated  in  Matt.  24:  34,  remained  to  be  fulfilled.  At 
that  distance  from  the  event,  he  might  properly  caution  believers  in  the  lan- 
guage of  2  Thess.  2,  against  premature  expectations.  The  day  of  Christ  was 
not '  at  hand'  in  such  a  sense  as  to  make  any  just  occasion  for  excitement  and 
alarm.  Stuart,  then,  has  no  right  to  assume,  because  Paul  said  in  A.  D.  54, 
the  day  of  Christ  should  not  come  until  after  certain  other  events,  that  there- 
fore it  did  not  come  in  xi.  D.  70  ;  or  that  Paul  and  the  other  apostles  did  not 
expect  and  teach  that  it  would  come  within  their  own  lifetime. 

To  justify  this  assumption,  he  would  probably  appeal  to  the  fact  that  the 

*  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  Greek  word,  here  translated — *  is  at  hand' — is  not  the 
same  as  that  used  in  Matt.  3:  3,  4:  17,  «fcc.,  but  a  word  of  more  intense  sig-nification. 
It  might  properly  be  rendered — ^ is  immediately  coming:*  while  Matt.  3:  3,  should  1»e 
translated  thus—  '  The  kingdom  of  heaven  approaches.' 


STUART   ON  ROMANS   13:   11.  303 

precursors  of  which  Paul  speaks — the  falling  away,  and  the  revelation  of  the 
man  of  sin — did  not  take  place  until  long  after  the  apostolic  age.  But  this 
is  only  another  assumption.  The  popular  theory  that  Popery  is  '  the  man 
of  sin'  predicted  in  2  Thess.  2,  is  by  no  means  so  sacred  or  self-evident, 
that  we  must  suffer  it  to  pass  for  truth  without  questioning.  Which  of  the 
Popes  has  ever  exalted  himself  above  God  ?  The  height  of  their  pretensions 
is,  that  they  are  God's  vicegerents,  not  his  rivals  or  superiors.  In  opposi- 
tion to  Protestant  conjectures,  we  can  produce  positive  evidence  from  the 
Bible  itself,  that  the  apostasy  and  manifestation  of  antichrist,  predicted  by 
Paul,  did  actually  take  place  within  the  lifetime  of  one  of  the  apostles.  '  Lit- 
tle children,  (says  John,  writing  as  late  at  least  as  A.  D.  69,)  it  is  the  last 
hour :  and  as  ye  have  heard  that  antichrist  shall  come,  even  now  are  there 
many  antichrists,  whereby  we  Jcnotv  that  it  is  the  last  hour."*  1  John  2:  18. 
Let  the  reader  observe  how  exactly  this  harmonizes  with  2  Thess.  2:  3.  Paul, 
WTiting  to  persons  who  prematurely  imagined  that '  the  last  hour'  had  come, 
assures  them  that  this  could  not  be  the  case,  because  antichrist  had  not  come. 
John,  writing  fifteen  or  twenty  years  later,  says,  '  It  is  the  last  hour,  because 
antichrist  has  come.'  Both  make  the  revelation  of  antichrist  the  last  precur- 
sor of  the  second  coming.  John  evidently  refers  to  the  prediction  of  Paul 
when  he  says,  '  As  ye  have  heard  that  antichrist  shall  come  ;'  while  Paul 
prepares  us  to  anticipate  the  testimony  of  John  by  saying,  '  The  mystery  of 
iniquity  c?o^A  already  work  ;^  ver.  7.  Moreover,  John  records  specifically 
the  fulfilment  of  Paul's  prediction  of  the  '  falling  away.'  He  says  immedi- 
ately after  the  verse  above  quoted,  '  They  [i.  e.  the  antichrists]  went  out 
from  iisJ  With  such  testimony  before  us  from  such  a  witness,  what  need  or 
right  have  we  to  '  travel  out  of  the  record'  into  conjectures  about  uninspired 
history  to  find  the  fulfilment  of  Paul's  prophecy. 

The  premature  excitement  of  the  Thessalonians,  and  Paul's  correction  of 
them,  instead  of  militating  with  the  theory  that  the  apostles  expected  the  sec^ 
ond  advent  within  their  own  lifetime,  actually  confirms  it.  The  Thessaloni- 
ans 'were  indeed  deluded  in  suffering  themselves  to  be  shaken  in  mind  and 
troubled  by  soothsayings,  which,  like  Millerism,  represented  the  terrors  of 
the  judgment  as  hanging  over  their  heads,  just  ready  to  fall  upon  them.  But 
the  very  fact  that  they  were  liable  to  such  a  delusion,  indicates  that  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ  and  the  apostles  had  placed  the  second  advent  near.  Delusion 
is  generally  an  imitation  or  an  abuse  of  the  truth.  If  the  apostles  taught 
that  Christ  would  come  again  within  the  period  of  a  generation  from  the  time 
of  his  personal  ministry,  how  easily  might  their  doctrine  be  made  the  occasion 
of  false  alarms,  especially  toward  the  close  of  the  period  designated.  And 
on  the  other  hand,  how  unnatural  such  excitements  appear,  if  we  suppose 
that  Paul  taught  the  churches  that  Christ  would  not  come  until  after  the  rev-  r/ 
elation  of  Papal  antichrist. 

The  German  hypothesis  that  the  primitive  church  expected  the  coming  of 
Christ  within  their  own  lifetime,  but  were  in  a  great  mistake  about  it,  involves 
worse  consequences  than  the  mere  denial  of  the  inspiration  of  the  apostles. 
If  Christ  did  not  come  as  they  expected,  not  only  their  teachings  were  falsi- 
fied, but  the  facts,  which  he  hin^lf  had  predicted  as  the  signs  and  imme-  Or 


804  THE  MAN  OP  SIN. 

diate  precursors  of  his  advent,  were  found  false  witnesses ;  for  we  have  seen 
that  the  last  of  those  signs— the  revelation  of  antichrist — appeared  while 
John  was  living.  He  legitimately  inferred  from  it  that  the  *  last  hour*  had 
come.  If  he  was  deceived,  it  was  because  he  believed  the  words  of  Christ, 
confirmed  by  facts  before  his  eyes. 

Stuart  ought  to  know  that  the  true  way  to  save  the  inspiration  of  the  apos- 
tles from  the  contempt  of  German  skepticism,  is,  to  keep  pace  with  the  skep- 
tics in  common  sense,  by  admitting  that  the  primitive  church  expected  the 
second  coming  within  the  period  of  that  generation,  and  then  go  beyond 
them  m  faith,  by  behoving  and  testifying  that  he  actually  did  come  in  ac- 
cordance with  those  expectations. 


§  42.    '^  THE  MAN  OF  SIN.^' 

Several  different  explanations  of  Paul's  prophecy  concerning  '  the  man 
of  sin,'  (2  Thess.  2:  1 — 12,)  have  been  proposed  by  different  expositors. — 
Many  insist  that  the  apostle  refers  to  Popery :  others  that  by  the  man  of  sin 
is  intended  an  individual  person,  that  is  yet  to  appear  in  the  world.  We  are 
not  sure  but  that  there  may  be  some  who  think  that  the  '  heresies'  and  '  vl- 
traisms'  which  at  the  present  time  are  turning  the  world  upside  down,  are 
manifestations  of  that  wicked  one,  whose  coming  Paul  makes  the  immediate 
precursor  of  the  coming  of  Christ.  These,  and  all  similar  theories,  are  built 
on  the  assumption  that  the  second  advent  is  yet  future.  When  this  assump- 
tion fails,  (as  fail  it  will  ere  long,)  these  theories  will  pass  away  of  course. 
Leaving  them,  therefore,  to  be  overthrown  by  the  natural  and  sure  progress 
of  truth  that  is  already  in  the  field,  we  will  proceed  to  set  forth  a  new  the- 
ory, based  on  the  assumption  that  Christ  came  the  second  time  at  the  end 
of  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  First,  we  will  state  as  concisely  as  possible,  the 
substance  of  what  we  believe  about  the  man  of  sin ;  and  then  we  will  give 
some  of  our  reasons  for  so  behoving. 

Our  belief  is,  that  Judas  Iscariot  was  the  man  of  sin  referred  to  in 
2  Thess.  2:  1 — 12  ;  that  he,  being  originally  a  greedy  lover  of  money,  and 
having  taken  on  him  the  garb  of  sanctity  and  apostleship,  became  the  most 
perfect  representative  of  the  sin  of  the  world,  and  especially^of  the  spiritual 
wickedness  of  the  Jewish  church ;  that  Satan,  finding  him  thus  prepared, 
'  entered  into  him,'  and  so  took  upon  himself  human  nature,  in]^^[ imitation  of 
the  incarnation  of  Christ ;  that  Judas  being  thus  constituted  the  '  son  of  per- 
dition,' as  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  was  thenceforward  the  chief  antago- 
nist of  Christ,  i.  e.,  antichrist ;  that  he  commenced  his  diabohcal  ministry 
by  betraying  the  Lord  of  glory  to  death  ;  that  by  his  own  death  he  went  '  to 
his  own  place,'  in  the  spiritual  world,  where  he  became  the  perfect  personal 
representative  of  Satan ;  and  as  such,  having  made  himself  head  of  the  invis- 


THE  MAN   OF  SIN.  805 

ible  carnal  clmrcli,  he  exalted  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  and 
claimed  divine  worship ;  that  the  false  apostles,  false  prophets,  antichrists, 
and  Ijing  wonder-workers  that  troubled  the  primitive  church,  were  his  mem- 
bers and  emissaries  ;  that  Paul,  being  his  successor  in  the  apostleship,  and 
his  reverse  in  character,  was  the  person  that  held  him  in  check  till  the  latter 
days  of  the  apostolic  age  ;  that  after  Paul  was  '  taken  out  of  the  way,'  the 
spirit  of  Judas  found  an  effectual  entrance  into  the  visible  church  ;  that  the 
consequence  was  a  flood  of  unrighteousness  and  damnable  delusions  ;  that  the 
second  coming  of  Christ  followed  shortly  after ;  by  which,  judgment  and  swift 
destruction  came  upon  Judas  personally  as  the  head  of  the  resurrection  of 
damnation  in  the  spiritual  world,  and  upon  all  his  emissaries  and  spiritual 
representatives  in  this  world. 

The  following  are  our  principal  reasons  for  entertaining  this  singular  theory: 

I.  It  is  certain  that  antichrist  (whoever  or  whatever  he  was)  did  actually 
appear  within  the  lifetime  of  John.  '  It  is  the  last  [hour,']  said  that  apostle, 
'  and  as  ye  have  heard  that  antichrist  shall  come,  even  now  are  there  many 
antichrists;  whereby  we  know  that  it  is  the  last  [hour.']  IJno.  2:  18. 
And  again,  '  Every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh,  is  not  of  God ;  and  this  is  that  spirit  of  antichrist^  whereof  ye  have  heard 
that  it  should  come,  and  even  noiv  already  is  it  in  the  world.^  1  Jno.  4:  3. 

II.  It  is  also  certain  that  this  antichrist  whose  manifestation  John  records, 
was  not  in  his  individual  person  a  visible  being,  but  a  sjnrit  residing  in  the 
invisible  world.  In  the  first  of  the  above  passages,  the  apostle  represents 
that  the  predictions  concerning  the  one  antichrist,  were  fulfilled  by  the  ap- 
pearance of  'ma7iy  antichrists  ;'  which  is  intelligible  only  on  the  supposition 
that  the  one  antichrist  was  a  spirit,  and  the  many  antichrists  were  his  visible 
manifestations.  And  in  the  last  of  those  passages,  the  predicted  wicked  one 
is  expressly  called '  that  spirit  of  antichrist.'  So  in  Paul's  prediction,  2  Thess. 
2:  1 — 12,  a  single  person  is  first  spoken  of  as  the  root  of  '  the  mystery  of 
iniquity,'  and  as  already  existing  ;  but  when  his  ^  working'  or  manifestation 
in  this  world  is  described,  the  apostle  runs  into  the  plural  number.  So  also 
Christ,  in  the  24th  of  Matthew,  speaks  of  false  Christs*  and  ^  false  prophets^ 
using  only  the  plural  form,  because  he  is  there  foretelhng  only  the  visible 
signs  of  the  second  coming.  As  Elijah,  residing  in  the  world  of  spirits,  was 
revealed  in  John  the  Baptist, — as  Christ,  after  his  death  and  ascension,  was 
'  revealed'  in  Paul,  (see  Gal.  1:  16,)  and  in  all  the  sons  of  God — so  we  un- 
derstand that  a  certain  man  so  pre-eminent  in  wickedness  as  to  deserve  the 
name  of  '  the  man  of  sin,'  having  previously  by  death  entered  the  spiritual 
world,  was  revealed  in  many  false  prophets  and  false  Christs,  in  the  latter 
days  of  the  primitive  chnrch.  This  is  the  only  view  of  the  matter  that  pla- 
ces antichrist  where  he  ought  to  be,  as  the  antithesis  of  Christ ;  for  Christ 
had  '  passed  into  the  heavens,'  and  his  second  coming  was  in  the  spiritual 
world. 

III.  That  Judas  Iscariot  was  the  man,  whose  manifestation  was  predicted 
by  Paul,  and  was  recorded  by  John,  is  evident  from  the  following  considera- 
tions :  1.  In  view  of  his  general  character  as  a, thief  in  the  garb  of  an  apos- 
tle, and  of  his  special  criminality  in  the  murder  of  his  Master,  we  may  safely 

38 


iHfi  MAN  or  BW. 

affirm  that  he  was  the  wickedest  man  that  ever  lived ;  of  course  tie  best  de* 
served  the  name  of '  the  man  of  sin.^  2.  The  distinguishing  title  which  Paul 
gives  the  man  of  sin — viz.  '  the  son  of  perdition^ — points  us  directly  to  Judas  J 
for  this  is  the  very  title  with  which  Christ  branded  him  ;  (see  John  17:  12;  ) 
and  it  is  given  to  no  other  man  in  the  Bible.  3.  Judas  is  distinguished  in 
scripture  above  all  men,  as  a  vessel  of  Satan.  It  is  not  said  of  any  other 
man  that  *  the  devil  [a  diabolos]  entered  into  him.'*  Judas  evidently  became 
an  incarnation  of  Satan^^a  combination  of  the  diabolical  and  human  natures,  in 
some  sense  corresponding  to  the  combination  of  the  human  and  divine  natures 
in  Jesus  Christ^  In  accordance  with  this  idea,  Patil  says  of  the  man  of  sin, 
that  his  '  coming  is  after  the  wbfkhig  of  Satan/  or  as  the  original  may  more 
properly  be  rendered, '  according  to  the  energy  \_or  inward  working']  of  Sa^ 
tan^'  4.  Judas  as  an  arch  hypocrite  was  exactly  fitted  to  pour  forth  what 
^aul  in  his  description  of  the  woi'k  of  the  man  of  sin  calls  '-all  deceivaUenes8 
of  unrighteousness. '^  5.  As  a  false  apogtle,  otie  that  had  participated  at  the 
beginning  in  the  miraculous  gifts  of  Jesus  Christ)  he  Was  the  very  man, 
through  whom  we  should  expect  Satan  would  manifest  his  'power  and  signs 
and  lying  wonders.'^  6.  As  a  traitor  to  Jesus  Christ,  he  Was  a  fit  instrument 
to  effect  the  '  great  falling  away.''  Thus  far  we  clearly  trace  the  lineaments 
of  the  man  of  sin  in  the  character  of  Judas. 

IV.  The  principal  objection  to  our  theory  which  will  occtir  to  tnost  minds, 
iS  this  :  Paul  describes  the  man  of  sin,  first  of  all,  as  '  exalting  himself  above 
all  that  is  calUd  God,  and  as  sitting  in  the  temple  of  God,  showing  himsetf 
thai  he  is  Grod}  How  can  this  characteristic  be  referred  to  Judas  Iscariot? 
We  answer,  it  can  be  referred  to  lio  man  except  one,  viz.,  that  man  (whoev- 
er he  is)  who  ig  Satan's  I'Cpt-esentative  or  incarnation.  For  it  is  not  suppo^ 
sable  that  a  mere  man  should  set  Up  himself  as  a  rival  of  God  ;  and  it  is  very 
certain  that  the  Pope  (whose  pretensions  have  beeti  as  exorbitant  as  any  in 
this  world)  never  Went  this  length*  Whereas  we  know  that  Satan,  led  on 
doubtless  by  imaginations  growing  OUt  of  the  fact  that  he  is  an  uncreated 
being,  has  sought,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  turn  men  from  the 
Worship  of  God  to  the  worship  of  himself^  and  it  is  expressly  recorded  that 

*The  Greek  word  dldholos,  translated  devil,  iS  found  in  the  plural  but  three  times  iri 
the  N.  Testament.  The  following-  afe  the  insttitices  }—*  Their  wives  must  be  ^rave,  not 
klandereVS^  Idiaboloi,']  sdber,  faithful  in  all  things.'  1  Tith.  3:  ll.  '  Men  shall  be  lovers  of* 
their  own  selves,  .  .  .  truce-breakers, /aZsc  accwScr^,  [rfinioZo/,]  incohtineht,' &e.  2  Tim. 
'8:  3.  '  Speak  thou  the  thing's  which  become  sound  doctrine  l  that  the  aged  men  be  so^ 
hev^  grave.  .  .  »  The  aged  women  likewise,  that  they  be  in  behavior  as  becometh  ho* 
liness,  not/al^e  nccuBerS,  \^diaboloi,'\  not  given  to  much  Wine,'  &-c.  Tit.  2;  3.  It  will  be 
hoticed,  that  in  each  of  these  cases  the  word  is  appVied  figvrathdy  to  mankind.  On  one 
b^  two  other  occasions  it  is  applied  in  the  same  way,  in  the  singular  number;  e.g., 
'  jesusj  [speaking  of  Judas,]  answered  them,  Have  not  I  chosen  you  twelve,  and  one 
bf*  ybU  is  a  devil  f  [diaboto^i]  Jbhn  6:  70.  But  whenever  the  word  is  used  literally,  de^ 
liotirig  an  evil  spirit^— and  it  is  so  lised  in  at  least  thirty-three  ihstances~-it  is  in  the 
lingular  number.  A  plurality  ofdiaboloi  is  never  spoken  of.  The  Wbrd  translated  devib 
in  such  expressions  as,  *  doctrines  of  devils,*  *  possessed  of  devils/  '  the  devils  believe 
and  ttemble,'  &.c.j  is  not  diabolos,  but  daimon  and  daimonion:  and  Would  be  more  prop-^ 
fcrly  rendered  dertions  or  evil  spirits. 

It  will  be  seen  that  these  facts  doncefnittg-  thfe  Word  diabolos,  have  an  important  bear^ 
Irt^  dh  but*  views  of  the  origin  of  evil.  They  show  that  Satan  is  a  being  by  himself, 
dirjtibgiiished  frdrtl  his  ttngels  |— that  there  is  but  ollB  Spirit  in  the  universe  that  is  prop^ 
fil'ly  deribiiiiflitcd  f  Hia  bfetiLi  *  "*^ 


THE  MAN  OP  SIN,  80T 

lie  attempted  to  hire  the  Son  of  God  to  fall  down  and  worship  him.  If  then 
Judas  was  as  we  maintain,  at  the  time  of  his  death  and  afterwards,  Satan 
^  manifest  in  the  flesh,'  we  may  be  sure  that  the  ambition  of  Satan  for  divine 
worship  was  fully  developed  in  him.  As  the  fulness  of  God  dwelt  in  Christ, 
so  that  he  justly  claimed  divine  honor,  so  ^VQ  believe  the  fulness  of  Satan 
dwelt  in  Judas,  causing  him  to  '  oppose  himself,'  i.  e.  to  set  up  himself  as  a 
rival  of  Christ,  and  seek  to  overreach  him  in  his  pretensions  of  divinity.  It 
is  evident  that  both  Satan  and  Judas,  after  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  found  themselves  in  a  desperate  case,  and  this  doubtless  helped  to  set 
them  on  the  desperate  attempt  to  supplant  their  great  enemy,  the  Son  of  God> 
by  counterfeiting  his  pretensions  and  intruding  into  his  church. 

V.  The  special  antagonism  which  existed  between  Jesus  Christ  and  Judas 
while  they  were  in  the  flesh,  is  very  distinctly  marked  in  the  Evangelists, 
The  motto  of  the  one  was, '  It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive/  The 
other  was  a  sordid  thief.  The  affair  which  finally  provoked  Judas  to  sell 
Jesus  Christ  to  his  murderers,  was  one  in  which  the  liberality  of  the  one  was 
jarrayed  against  the  covetousness  of  the  other.  (See  Matt,  26j  6—16,  com- 
pared with  John  12:  6.)  This  same  struggle  of  liberality  against  covetous- 
ness is  very  manifest  in  the  history  of  the  church  after  the  death  of  Jesus 
and  Judas.  For  example,  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
eaused  all  hearts  to  flow  together,  and  the  lines  of  exclusiveness  in  regard  to 
property  were  obliterated."~^hus  was  Jesus  manifested.  But  directly  An- 
anias and  Sapphira  appeared  on  the  field,  In  the  full  power  of  artful  covets 
ousness.  Why  shall  we  not  say,  thus  Judas  w^as  manifested  ?  Those  liars 
were  certainly  vessels  of  the  same  Batan  that  incarnated  himself  in  Judas  ; 
and  if  the  Spirit  of  God  that  prostrated  selfishness  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
was  poured  through  the  human  nature  of  Jesus,  why  was  not  the  spirit  of 
Satan,  that  moved  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  poured  through  the  human  nature 
0f  Juda^  ? 

VI.  Many  circumstances  conspire  to  prove  that  the  Judas-spirit  wp^  in  a 
great  measure  excluded  from  the  church  till  the  last  days  of  the  apostolic 
age.  The  transactions  of  the  day  of  Pentecost,  seconded  by  the  myful  judg» 
ment  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  made  an  impression  which  oou^d.  not  be  im^ 
mediately  effaced.  Peter's  withering  rebuke  of  Simon  Magus,  also,,  was  well 
fitted  to  put  a  check  on  Satan's  attempts  to  amalgamate  Christianity  with 
Mammonism.  At  length  Paul  entered  the  fteld  as  the  successor  of  Judas. 
Having  at  first  betrayed  the  cause  of  Satan,  as  effectually  as  Judas  betrayed 
that  of  Christ,  he  was  soon  found  in  Judas's  peculiar  office,  'carrying  the  bag' 
of  the  churches.  But  instead  of  embezzling  the  funds  committed  to  him,  he 
refused  even  to  be  supported  by  the  churches,  though  it  was  his  acknowledged 
right  to  '  five  by  the  gospel,'  but  maintained  himself  and  relieved  others  by 
the  labor  of  his  own  hands.  His  self-sacrificing  example,  his  labors  and  ap* 
peals  for  the  poor,  and  his  loud  repeated  warnings  against '  the  love  of  money,' 
as  being  the  '  root  of  all  evil,'  wer$  agencies  of  mighty  influence  to  keep  bad? 
the  revelation  of  the  man  of  siin*  As  Judas  was  an  anti-Christy  go  Paul  was 
an  anti- Judas  ;  and  while  he  remained,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
the  church  was  comparatively  pure  from  covetousness,  We  infer  this  fronj 
«uch  predictions  as  the  following ;  ^  This  know  also,  that  in  the  la^t  da}f§^ 


808  THE  MAN    OF   SIN. 

perilous  times  shall  come  :  for  men  shall  be  lovers  of  their  own  selves,  cove- 
tous,' &c.;  (2Tim.  3:  1, 2  ;) — as  though  hitherto  "selfishness  and  covetousness 
had  been  almost  unknown  among  the  saints.  Again,  '  There  shall  be  false 
teachers  among  you,  .  .  .  and  ^/trow^A  cot^e^fawswess,  shall  they  with  feigned 
words  77iake  merchandise  of  you:  2  Pet.  2:  1—3.  Thus  it  would  seem  that 
simony  and  greedy  priestcraft  were  yet,  in  Peter's  time,  to  a  great  extent, 
matters  of  prophecy.* 

VII.  We  judge  that  Paul  referred  to  himself,  w^hen  he  said — '  Ye  know 
what  ivithholdeth,  that  he  [the  man  of  sin]  might  be  revealed  in  his  time. 
For  the  mystery  of  inicpity  doth  already  work  ;  only  he  who  noiv  \Jiindereth'] 
will  [hinder]  till  he  be  taken  out  of  the  way.'  2  Thess.  2:  6,  7.  That  Paul 
'  hindered'  the  invasion  of  the  Judas-spirit,  we  have  already  seen.  The  fol- 
lowing account  of  his  interview  with  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  shows  that  he 
expected  that  spirit  would  break  forth  and  ravage  the  church,  when  he  him- 
self shoidd  he  '  taken  out  of  the  way  .•' — '  When  they  were  come  to  him,  he 
said  to  them,  ye  know,  from  the  first  day  that  I  came  into  Asia,  after  what 
manner  I  have  been  with  you  at  all  seasons :  serving  the  Lord  with  all  hu- 
mility of  mind :  .  .  .  and  now  behold  I  know  that  ye  all  among  whom  I  have 
gone  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God,  shall  see  my  face  no  more  :  .  .  .  Take 
heed  therefore  to  yourselves,  and  to  the  flock:  .  .  .  for  I  know  this,  that 
AFTER  MY  DEPARTURE  shall  gricvous  wolvcs  enter  in  among  you,  not  sparing 
the  flock.  .  .  .  Therefore  watch,  and  remember  that  by.  the  space  of  three 
years,  I  ceased  not  to  warn  every  one.  .  .  .  I  have  coveted  no  man^s  silver, 
or  gold,  or  apparel — yea,  ye  yourselves  know  that  these  hantls  have  ministered 
to  my  7iecessities,  and  to  them  that  were  ivith  me ;  I  have  showed  you  all 
things,  how  that  so  laboring  ye  ought  to  support  the  weak,  and  to  remember 
the  ivords  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  how  he  said,  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to 
receive.  And  when  he  had  thus  spoken  he  kneeled  down  and  prayed  with 
them  all.'  Acts  20:  18 — 36.  Now  let  it  be  supposed  that  Paul  had  said 
these  same  things  to  the  Thessalonians,  (and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
he  did,)  how  readily  and  rightly  would  they  understand  him,  as  speaking  of 
himself  when  he  modestly  writes — '  He  that  now  hindereth  will  hinder,  till  he 
be  taken  out  of  the  way:'  and  how  easily  would  they  perceive  that  his  glori- 
ous freedom  from  covetousness,  was  that  by  which  he  'hindered'  the  spirit  of 
Judas  from  desolating  the  church.     In  a  like  strain  he  exhorts  Timothy  to 

*  We  find  no  account  in  the  New  Testament,  of  any  system  o^  taxation  in  the  primitive 
church.  All  contributions  were  voluntary.  It  no  where  appears  thnt  the  ministers  had 
Stated  salaries.  The  oft-quoled  saying",  llie  laborer  is  icorthij  of  his  'aire/  certainly  was 
not  uttered  by  Jesus  Christ  or  Paul  with  a  view  to  cotmtenance  the  modern  practice 
of  paying  ministers  reg-ular  tcages;  for  no  such  practice  existed  in  the  times  ot  the  apos- 
tles. '  The  t)X  that  trod  the  corn'  was  not  mnzzled,  but  neither  did  he  have  his  peck  of 
corn  measured  out  to  him  at  stated  intervals.  The  coutributions  which  Paul  labored  so 
zealously  to  <rather,  and  which  are  often  referred  to  as  examples  lor  modern  imitation, 
were  not  made  for  the  support  of  ministers,  or  missionaries,  hot  for  the  relief  of  poor 
saints.  The  church  charged  itself  with  the  support  of  its  widows  and  other  needy  per- 
sons, more  systematically  than  with  the  support  of  its  ministers  ;  for  some  of  the  min- 
isters, as  for  instance  Paul,  were  able  and  willing  to  support  themselves.  Though  there 
is  no  doubt  that  they  who  labored  in  spiritual  things  were  generally  and  justly  main- 
tained in  carnal  things  by  the  churches,  yet  the  relief  of  the  poor  in  each  church,  and 
of  poor  churches,  especially  in  time  of  famine,  was  a  far  more  prominent  matter  of 
finance,  than  the  raising"  of  wages  for  individual  laborers. 


THE   MAN   OF   SIX.  309 

strenuous  diligence  in  his  ministry,  and  warns  him  of  impending  apostasies  in 
view  of  his  own  approaching  departure.  2  Tim.  4:  1 — 6. 

VIII.  In  order  that  we  may  understand  the  closing  scene  of  the  drama 
which  we  are  investigating,  we  must  keep  in  mind  Judas's  relation  to  the  whole 
carnal  Jewish  church,  as  well  as  to  the  spiritual  church  of  Christ.  While  on 
the  one  hand,  he  was  the  head  of  the  false  apostles,  and  greedy  worldlings 
that  were  let  loose  on  the  church  of  Christ  after  Paul's  departure,  and  so 
caused  that '  great  falling  away,'  whereby  the  Son  of  God  was  denied,  and 
his  impending  second  coming  was  scoifed  at ;  and  while  on  this  portion  of 
Judas's  spiritual  kingdom,  God  sent  -strong  delusions,  that  they  all  might  be 
damned' — delusions,  which  have  darkened  all  Christendom  for  eighteen  hun- 
dred years  ; — on  the  other  hand,  Judas  was  also  the  leader  of  the  murderers 
of  Christ,  the  spiritual  head  of  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees,  those  sancti- 
monious mammonites  who  constituted  the  Jewish  hierarchy,  and  whose  ripe 
iniquities  purchased  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  long  desolations  of 
Israel.  On  this  part  of  Judas's  spiritual  body,  God  poured  utter  and  hteral 
destruction.  Viewing  the  horrors  of  the  siege  and  overthrow  of  Jerusalem, 
as  a  visible  index  of  the  judgment  which  came  on  Judas  in  the  invisible  world 
at  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  we  may  well  believe  that  Paul's  prediction  con- 
cerning the  man  of  sin,  that  the  Lord  should  '  consume  him  with  the  spirit  of 
his  mouth,  and  destroy  him  with  the  brightness  of  his  coming,'  was  fulfilled 
to  the  uttermost.*  The  following  words  of  the  prophet  Micah,  plainly  point  out 
the  sin  for  which  God  poured  his  judgments  on  the  Jewish  nation;  and  of  that 
sin  Judas  was  the  very  personification.  We  may  therefore  reasonably  infer 
his  judgment  and  damnation,  as  one  of  the  invisible  concomitants  of  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  : — ''  Truly  I  am  full  of  power  by  the  spirit  of  the  Lord, 
and  of  judgment,  and  of  might,  to  declare  unto  Jacob  his  transgression^  and 

*  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  first  chapter  of  Acts,  g-oes  into  a  long- 
and  labored  arg-ument  to  prove  the  possibility  and  even  probability  of  Judas's  salvation, 
on  the  hypothesis  that  he  i9incerely  repented,  and  instead  of  hanging  himself,  died  of 
g-rief.  It  is  a  most  curious  instance  of  a  divine's  playing-  the  lawyer  for  Satan  ;  and  it 
is  so  gross  that  it  would  be  utterly  unaccountable,  were  we  not  apprised  by  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  Doctor's  Commentary,  of  his  sleepless  zeal  against  the  doctrhie  of  repro- 
bation, which  the  case  of  Judas  is  commonly  supposed  to  favor.  We  would  far  more 
readily  undertake  to  plead  the  cause  of  Pontius  Pilate,  than  of  Judas.  Many  circum- 
stances give  a  favorable  aspect  to  Pilate's  case.  1.  He  boldly  maintained  the  innocence 
of  Christ  against  his  accusers,  and  did  all  he  could  to  procure  his  release,  short  of  a  (br- 
cible  resistance  to  the  demands  of  the  Jewish  mob.  2.  Christ  expressly  palliated  his 
guilt,  thus  : — '  Pilate  said  unto  him,  Knowest  thou  not  that  I  have  power  to  crucify  thee, 
and  have  power  to  release  thee  ?  Jesus  answered.  Thou  couldst  have  no  pcver  against 
me  except  it  were  given  thee  from  above  ;  therefore  he  that  delivered  me  unto  thee  hath  the 
greater  sin.'  John  19:  10,  11.  Clarke  makes  Judas's  knowledge  of  Christ's  power,  a 
palliation  of  his  guilt,  as  though  he  expected  Christ  would  exert  it  and  so  escape.— 
Whereas  Christ  intimates  that  this  was  the  very  thing  that  made  him  a  greater  sinner 
than  Pilate.  3.  This  distinction  between  Judas  and  Pilate,  in  regard  to  laTowIedt'c, 
would  lead  us  to  include  Pilate  in  Christ's  prayer—'  Father,'  forgive  them, /or  they  knoio 
not  what  they  rfo'— and  exfiiycle  Judas.  4.  Pilate  exercised  no  extra-legal  cruelty  toward 
Jesus,  whereas  '  Herod  and  his  men  of  war  set  him  at  nought,'  clothed  him  in  purple, 
crowned  him  with  thorns,  spit  on  him,  &c.  &e.  These  considerations,  however,  are  to 
be  regarded  only  as  plausible  grounds  of  argument,  not  sound  proofs;  for  the  tradition 
is,  (what  credit  is  due  to  it  we  know  not,)  that  Pilate,  like  Judas,  finally  killed  himself. 
But  we  hold  that  Dr.  Clarke's  conceit  about  Judas,  is  far  less  probable  than  ours  about 
Pilate.  Even  Fletcher  (whose  authority  is  great  among  anti-Calvinists)  gives  up  Judas 
io  perdition.    See   '  Fletcher's  Checks,'   Vol.  I.  p.  404. 


310  ROBINSON  ON  MATT.   24:  29—31. 

to  Israel  his  sin.  Hear  this,  I  pray  you,  ye  heads  of  the  house  of  Jacob, 
and  princes  of  the  house  of  Israel,  that  abhor  judgment  and  pervert  all  equity. 
They  build  up  Zion  with  blood,  and  Jerusalem  with  iniquity.  The  heads 
thereof  judge  for  reward^  and  the  priests  thereof  teach  for  hire,  and  the 
prophets  thereof  divine  for  money  ;  yet  will  they  lean  upon  the  Lord,  and 
say.  Is  not  the  Lord  among  us  ?  none  evil  can  come  upon  us.  Therefore^ 
shall  Zion  for  your  sake  be  ploughed  as  a  field,  and  Jerusalem  shall  become 
heaps,  and  the  mountain  of  the  house  as  the  high  places  of  the  forest." 


§43.    ROBINSON  ON  MATT.  24:  29—31. 

"The  Coming  of  Christ;   as  announced  in  Matt.  24:  29-31." 

The  above  is  the  title  of  a  learned  article  in  the  third  number  of  the 
Bibliotheca  Sacra,  (Dec.  1843,)  by  the  editor,  Edward  Robinson,  D.  D, 
We  Avill  review  it,  for  the  sake  of  exhibiting  to  our  readers  the  position  of 
the  learned  world  in  relation  to  the  predictions  of  the  second  coming. 

Dr.  Robinson  first  gives  his  views  of  the  meaning  of  the  disciples'  ques- 
tion in  the  3d  verse  of  Matthew  24,  notices  the  predictions  in  the  former 
part  of  the  chapter,  introduces  the  whole  of  the  29th,  30th  and  31st  verses, 
with  the  parallel  passages  in  Mark  and  Luke,  closing  with  a  sketch  of  the 
parable  of  the  fig-tree,  and  the  emphatic  designation  of  time  in  the  34th 
verse,  and  then  says : 

"  The  subject  is  now  before  the  reader  ;  and  the  question  to  be  considered  is : 
Whether  the  language  of  Matthew  in  the  passage  above  quoted,  is  to  be  referred 
to  the  judgment  of  the  last  great  day  ;  or,  rather  to  the  then  impending  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish  nation  ?  It  is  a  question  on  which  good  men 
have  ever  differed  ;  and  on  which,  perhaps,  entire  unity  of  feeling  is  not  to  be 
expected,  until  the  night  of  darkness  and  ignorance  in  which  we  are  here  envel- 
oped, shall  be  chased  away  by  the  morn  of  pure  light  and  perfect  knowledge. 

It  is  conceded  by  all,  I  believe,  that  the  representation  as  far  as  to  the  end  of 
the  28th  verse  of  Matthew,  and  in  the  parallel  verses  of  the  other  evangelists, 
applies  solely  to  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem.  Or,  if  there  be  still  those  who  would 
refer  any  portion  of  these  preceding  verses  to  the  judgment  day,  it  seems  to  me 
that  they  must  first  show  that  the  'abomination  of  desolation'  spoken  of  by  Mat- 
thew  and  Luke  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  *  compassing  of  Jerusalem  with  armies,* 
mentioned  in  the  same  connexion  by  Luke:  and  then,  further,  that  all  these  things 
could  have  no  connexion  with  the  *  treading  down'  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Gentiles, 
which  Luke  goes  on  to  speak  of  as  the  result  of  all  these  antecedent  circumstan- 
ces. This,  however,  cannot  well  be  shown,  without  disregarding  every  rule  of 
interpretation,  and  without  violating  the  very  first  principles  of  language. 

But  with  the  29th  verse  a  new  specification  of  time  is  introduced  :  '  Immedi" 
ately  after  the  afiliction  of  tho«e  days'  shall  appear  the  harbingers  of  our  Lord's 
coming  ;  and  these  are  depicted  in  language  which  elsewhere,  it  is  said,  is  employ- 
ed only  to  describe  his  coming  to  the  final  judgment.  The  ^corning'  here  roeant,  is 


■BHHp.' 


tiOBiNSON  ON  MAM.  24:  29—31.  811 


then  to  be  subsequent  to  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  can  therefore  only  mean 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah  in  his  kingdom  at  the  judgment  day.  This  opinion 
IS  perhaps,  at  ihe  present  time,  the  most  prevalent  one  among  commentators,  and 
even  with  those  whose  views  in  other  respects  have  little  in  common ;  as  in  the 
case  of  Olshausen  and  De  Wette,  [eminent  German  commentators.] 

But  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  replied,  that  the  phrase  '  immediately  after''  indi- 
cates a  very  close  connexion  of  this  *coming'  of  our  Lord  with  the  preceding 
events  ;  and  the  Savior  himself  goes  on  to  declare,  that  <  this  generation  shall 
not  pass  away,  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled.'  We  must  then  assume,  it  is  said, 
that  the  prediction  had  its  fulfilment  within  a  period  not  long  subsequent  to  our 
Lord's  ministry  ;  orj  if  it  is  to  be  referred  to  the  day  of  judgment,  then  we  must 
admit  that  our  Lord  was  in  error,  inasmuch  as  he  here  foretold  that  it  would  take 
place  immediately  after  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem.  For  these  reasons  many 
commentators  have  understood  the  language  as  applicable  only  to  the  destruction 
of  the  Holy  City  t  forgetting^  apparently,  that  the  very  tixpression  which  they 
urge  against  a  remote  future  application,  is  equally  stringent  against  an  exclu- 
sive reference  to  the  latter  catastrophe;*'  [i.e.,  the  expression  ^immediately  after,^ 
while  it  precludes  reference  to  events  far  distant  from  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, at  the  same  time  necessarily  goes  beyond  that  event.]  p.  538. 

In  his  examination  of  the  language  of  the  passage,  preliminary  to  a  pre- 
sentation of  his  own  viewsj  Dr»  Robinson  says : 

«  The  word  eutheos  means  literally  straightway,  and  implies  a  succession  more 
Or  less  direct  and  immediate  ;  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt,  as  DeWette  justly 
remarks,  that  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  as  here  described  by  Matthew,  was 
sti'aightivay  to  follow  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Indeed  no  meaning  can 
possibly  be  assigned  to  eutheos,  which  will  admit  of  any  great  delay ;  much  less 
of  an  interval  so  enormous  as  that  between  the  destruction  of  the  Holy  City 
and  the  end  of  the  world,  as  understood  by  us.  From  this  it  is  manifest,  that 
<  the  coming'  of  Christ  here  spoken  of,  as  occurring  after  the  downfall  of  Jeru- 
(salem,  could  not  be  meant  to  refer  solely  to  that  event. 

Our  Lord  himself  limits  the  interval  within  which  Jerusalem  shall  be  destroyed 
and  his  '  coming'  take  place,  to  that  same  generation  :  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  this 
generation  shall  not  pass,  till  all  these  things  he  JuJfilled,  The  language  is  here 
plain,  definite,  and  express ;  it  cannot  be  misunderstood,  nor  perverted.  It  follows, 
in  all  the  evangelists,  the  annunciation  of  our  Lord's  <  coming,'  and  applies  to  it 
in  them  all,  just  as  much  as  it  applies  to  the  antecedent  declarations  respecting 
Jerusalem ;  and  more  directly,  indeed,  inasmuch  as  it  stands  here  in  a  closer 
connexion."    p.  540. 

The  writer  then  descants  upon  the  word  generation^  and  expresses  the 
opuiion  that  it  is  to  be  taken  '  in  the  largest  sense,  and  in  accordance  with 
popular  Hebrew  usage,  as  implying  a  hundred  years,'  or  thereabouts.  He 
then  proceeds : 

"  The  question  now  arises.  Whether,  under  these  limitations  of  time,  a  refer- 
enceof  our  Lord's  language  to  the  Jay  of  judgment  and  the  end  of  the  world,  in 
our  sense  of  these  terms,  is  possible?  Those  Who  maintain  this  view  attempt  to 
dispose  of  the  difficulties  arising  from  these  limitations  in  different  ways.  Some 
assign  to  eutheos  the  meaning  suddenly,  as  it  is  employed  by  the  Seventy  in  Job 
6:  3,  for  the  Hebrew  pithom.  But  even  ip  this  passage,  the  purpose  of  the  writer 
is  simply  to  mark  an  immediate  sequence — to  intimate  that  another  and  conse- 
quent event  happened  forthwith.     Nor  would  any  thing  be  gained,  even  could 


312  ROBINSOX  ON  MATT.  24:  29 — 31. 

the  word  eutheos  be  thus  disposed  of.  so  long  as  the  subsequent  limitation  to  *  this 
generation'  remained.  And  in  this,  again,  others  have  tried  to  refer  genea  to  the 
race  of  the  Jews  or  to  the  disciples  of  Christ ;  not  only  without  the  slightest 
ground,  but  contrary  to  all  Msag«^  and  all  analogy.  All  these  attempts  to  apply 
force  to  the  meaning  of  the  language,  are  in  vain  ;  and  are  now  abandoned  by 
most  commentators  of  note.  Two  or  three  general  views,  however,  are  current 
on  the  subject,  which  demand  some  further  remark. 

One  is  that  of  De  Wette  and  others,  who  do  not  hesitate  to  regard  our  Lord  as 
here  announcing,  that  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  to  the  judgment  of  the  last  day 
would  take  place  immediately  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  This  idea,  according 
to  De  Wette,  is  clearly  expressed  by  our  Lord,  both  here  and  elsewhere ;  and 
was  likewise  held  by  Paul.  But  as  the  day  of  judgment  has  not  yet  come,  it  fol- 
lows,  either  that  our  Lord,  if  correctly  reported,  was  himself  mistaken,  and  spoke 
here  of  things  which  he  knew  not;  or  else,  that  the  sacred  writers  have  not  truly 
related  his  discourse.  The  latter  horn  of  this  dilemma  is  preferred  by  De  Wette. 
According  to  him  the  disciples  entertained  the  idea  of  their  Lord's  return  with 
such  vividness  of  faith  and  hope,  that  they  overlooked  the  relations  of  time,  which 
Jesus  himself  had  left  indefinite ;  and  they  thus  connected  his  final  coming  im- 
mediately with  his  coming  to  destroy  Jerusalem.  They  give  here,  therefore, 
their  own  conception  of  our  Lord's  language,  rather  than  the  language  itself  as 
it  fell  from  his  lips.  They  mistook  his  meaning  ;  they  acted  upon  this  mistake 
in  their  own  belief  and  preaching  ;  and  in  their  writings  have  perpetuated  it  to 
the  world  throughout  all  time. 

This  view  is,  of  course,  incompatible  with  any  and  every  idea  of  inspiration 
on  the  part  of  the  sacred  writers  ;  the  very  essence  of  which  is,  that  they  were 
commissioned  and  aided  by  the  Spirit  to  impart  truth  to  the  world,  and  not  error. 
To  a  believer  in  this  fundamental  doctrine,  no  argument  can  here  be  necessary, 
nor  in  place,  to  counteract  the  view  above  presented.  To  state  it  in  its  naked 
contrast  with  the  divine  authority  of  God's  word,  is  enough."  p.  541. 

In  his  next  paragraph,  Dr.  Robinson  criticises  the  preceding  views  of  the 
German  commentators,  very  much  in  the  way  Prof.  Stuart  criticises  Tholuck 
and  others  in  his  commentary  on  Rom.  13:  11.  (See  p.  301.)  The  Doctor 
proceeds : 

"  Another  form  of  the  same  general  view  is  that  presented  by  Olshausen.  He 
too  refers  the  verses  of  Matthew  under  consideration  directly  to  the  final  coming 
of  Christ ;  but  seeks  to  avoid  the  difliculty  above  stated,  by  an  explanation  de- 
rived from  the  alleged  nature  of  prophecy.  He  adopts  the  theory  broached  by 
Hengstenberg,  that  inasmuch  as  the  vision  of  future  things  was  presented  solely 
to  the  mental  or  spiritual  eye  of  the  prophet,  he  thus  saw  them  all  at  one  glance 
as  present  realities,  with  equal  vividness  and  without  any  distinction  of  order  or 
time, — like  the  figures  of  a  great  painting  without  perspective  or  other  marks  of 
distance  or  relative  position.  <  The  facts  and  realities  are  distinctly  perceived  ; 
but  not  their  distance  from  the  period,  nor  the  intervals  by  which  they  are  sepa- 
rated  from  each  other.'  Hence  our  Lord,  in  submitting  himself  to  the  laws  of 
prophetic  vision,  was  led  to  speak  of  his  last  coming  in  immediate  connexion 
with  his  coming  for  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  :  because  in  vision  the  two  were 
presented  together  to  his  spiritual  eye,  without  note  of  any  interval  of  time. — 
Not  to  dwell  here  upon  the  fact,  that  this  whole  theory  of  prophecy  is  fanciful 
hypothesis,  and  appears  to  have  been  since  abandoned  by  its  author ;  it  is  enough 
to  remark,  that  this  explanation  admits,  after  all,  the  same  fundamental  error, 
viz.  that  our  Lord  did  mistakenly  announce  his  final  coming  as  immediately  to 


ROBINSON  ON  MATT.  24:  29 — 31.  813 

V 
follow  the  overthrow  of  the  Holy  City.     Indeed,  the  difficulty  is  even  greater 
here,  if  possible,  than  before  ;  because,  according  to  the  former  view,  the  error 
may  be  charged  upon  the  report  of  the  evangelists;  while  here  it  can  only  be  re- 
ferred to  our  Lord  himself."  p.  544. 

The  writer  next  proceeds  to  show  by  examples  from  the  Old  Testament, 
(suchaslsa.  13:  9,  34:  4,  &c.,)  that  the  language  of  Matt.  24:  29—31, 
may  be  only  a  figurative  description  of  '  civil  and  political  commotions  and 
revolutions.'     His  conclusion  from  these  examples  is  thus  stated  : 

«  We  come  then  to  the  general  result,  that  the  language  of  the  three  verses 
under  consideration  does  not  necessarily  in  itself  apply  to  the  general  judgment ; 
while  the  nature  of  the  context  shows  that  such  an  application  is  inadmissible. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing  in  the  language  itself  to  binder  our  referring 
it  to  the  downfall  of  Judaism  and  the  Jewish  people  ;  but  rather  both  the  context 
and  the  attendant  circumstances  require  it  to  be  understood  of  these  events." — 
p.  549. 

Finally,  the  writer  actually  applies  the  tremendous  announcement  of  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  man  in  Matt.  24:  29 — 31,  to  a  second  Jewish  war^ — the 
final  catastrophe  of  the  nation,  which  took  place  some  time  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  in  A.  D.  70.  The  following  paragraph  presents  the  con- 
cluding epitome  of  his  theory : 

"  After  these  illustrations,  I  may  sum  up  here  in  a  few  words  (he  views  sugges- 
ted to  ray  own  mind  in  respect  to  the  discourse  of  our  Lord  under  consideration. 
In  reply  to  the  question  of  the  four  disciples:  '  When  shall  these  things  be?' 
Jesus  first  points  out  what  was  to  happen  after  his  departure — the  trials  and 
dangers  to  which  his  followers  would  be  exposed.  Then  comes  the  <  abomination 
of  desolation  :'  Jerusalem  is  '  compassed  by  armies,'  and  is  '  trodden  down  by  the 
Gentiles  :' — all  this  referring  to  its  desolation  by  Titus  in  A.  D.  70.  Immedi- 
ately afterward  the  Lord  would  come  and  establish  more  fully  his  spiritual  king- 
dom, by  crushing  in  terrible  destruction  the  last  remnants  of  the  power  and  name 
of  Judaism  ;  and  this  within  the  general  limit  of  a  generation  of  a  hundred  years 
from  the  time  when  he  was  speaking.  There  might,  therefore,  literally  have 
been  some  then  '  standing  there,  who  did  not  taste  of  death  till  they  saw  the  Son 
of  man  [thus]  coming  in  his  kingdom.'  Then  it  was,  when  this  first  great  foe 
of  the  gospel  dispensation  should  have  been  thus  trampled  down,  that  Christians 
were  to  look  up.  *  Then  look  up,  and  lift  up  your  heads  ;  for  your  redemption 
draweth  nigh!'  The  chains  of  religious  despotism  and  the  terrors  of  Jewish 
persecution  would  then  be  at  an  end  forever  ;  and  the  disciples  of  Christ,  thus 
far  disenthralled  and  triumphant,  might  rejoice  in  the  prevalence  of  the  gospel 
of  peace  and  love, — the  coming  of  Christ's  spiritual  kingdom  upon  earth!" — 
p.  552. 

One  of  the  laws  of  interpretation  which  Prof.  Stuart  and  the  Germans 
most  earnestly  insist  upon,  is,  that  a  ^frigid  and  inept  meaning  can  be  no  true 
meaning.'  It  seems  to  us  that  this  law  alone  decisively  condemns  Dr.  Rob- 
inson's interpretation.  What  can  be  more  '  frigid  and  inept'  than  to  refer  a 
description  of  the  coming  of  Christ  to  blast  his  enemies  and  gather  his  elect, 
to  an  obscure  Jewish  war,  and  the  consequent  prevalence  of  the  gospel  I 
This  is  the  old  theory  of  the  Umversalists»  in  a  new  form.  They  refer  the 
whole  of  Matt.  24:  15 — 31  to  the  well  known  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and 
the  resulting  enlargement  of  Christianity ;  while  Dr.  Robinson  refers  the  first  'P"" 
39 


S14  ROBINSON  ON  MATT.   24:   29—31. 

part  of  the  passage  (as  far  as  verse  28)  to  that  catastrophe,  and  the  remain- 
cev  to  a  subsequent  and  certainly  less  distinguished  series  of  transactions* 
He  has  the  advantage  of  them  in  that  he  gives  a  plausible  meaning  to  the 
■words  '  immediately  after. ^  But  we  think  they  have  the  advantage  of  him, 
in  that  they  apply  the  most  sublime  part  of  the  passage  to  the  most  sublime 
transaction,  which  he  does  not.  Both  parties  rob  the  passage  of  all  reference 
to  the  invisible  world  and  eternal  judgment. 

But  waiving  this  general  objection,  we  would  ask  Dr.  Robinson,  how  ac- 
cording to  his  theory  are  we  to  understand  verse  27— 'As  the  hghtning  Com- 
eth out  of  the  east  and  shineth  even  unto  the  west,  so  shall  also  the  coming 
of  the  Son  of  man  be'  ?  Does  not  this  describe  an  instantaneous  and  omni- 
present manifestation  of  Christ  ?  What  plausible  fulfilment  of  these  words 
can  be  found  in  the  history  of  the  second  Jewish  war,  or  of  the  first,  or  in 
the  history  of  the  external  world  ?  The  Doctor  says  nothing  about  this 
passage* 

Again,  how  will  he  dispose  of  Rev.  6:  12—17,  and  the  chapter  that  fol- 
lows? This  is  a  repetition,  almost  verbatim,  of  Matt.  24:  29—31.  No  candid 
man  can  doubt  that  the  two  refer  to  the  same  coming  of  Christ.  But  in 
Rev.  6:  15 — 17,  we  have  as  strong  a  description  of  the  judgment — Hhe  great 
day  of  the  wrath  of  the  Lamb' — as  can  be  found  in  the  Bible.  If  no  eternal 
judgment,  but  only  civil  commotions  and  temporal  disasters  are  to  be  recog- 
nized here,  we  might  safely  engage  to  expurgate,  by  plausible  exegesis,  the 
whole  Bible  of  all  allusions  to  a  day  of  judgment,  or  even  to  an  invisible  world. 
In  the  7th  chapter,  immediately  following  this  description  of  Christ's  coming, 
we  have  an  extended  account  of  the  sealing  and  gathering  of  the  hosts  of  the 
redeemed.  This  obviously  corresponds  to  Matt.  24:  31, — '  He  shall  send 
his  angels  with  a  great  sound  of  a  trumpet,  and  they  shall  gather  together 
his  elect  from  the  four  winds,  (see  Rev.  7:  1,)  from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the 
other.'  Now  of  these  '  elect'  thus  gathered,  it  is  said  (verse  14 — 17)— 
*  These  are  they  which  came  out  of  great  trihulatioii,  and  have  washed  their 
robes^  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.  Therefore  are  they 
before  the  throne  of  God,  and  serve  him  day  and  night  in  his  temple :  and 
he  that  sitteth  on  the  throne  shall  dwell  amojig  them.  They  shall  hunger  no 
more,  neither  thirst  any  more  ;  neither  shall  the  sun  light  on  them,  nor  any 
heat.  For  the  Lamb  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  throne,  shall  feed  them, 
and  shall  lead  them  unto  living  fountains  of  waters :  and  Grod  shall  tvijpe 
away  all  tears  from  their  eyes.^  Can  this  be  conjured  into  a  description  of 
any  deliverances  of  the  saints  that  have  ever  taken  place  in  this  world  ? 
Nay,  verily  ;  here  is  language  that '  entereth  into  that  within  the  veil ;'  and 
as  surely  as  it  does,  so  surely  it  demonstrates  that  the  coming  of  Christ  des- 
cribed in  Matt.  24:  30,  came  to  pass  within  the  veil,  and  was  to  '  many'  the 
harbinger  of  eternal  judgment. 

Our  author  concludes  his  article  with  some  remarks  on  the  remainder  of 
Christ's  discourse  in  the  24th  and  25th  of  Matthew.  He  thinks  the  latter 
part  of  the  25th  chapter  certainly  refers  to  the  final  judgment ;  and  finds  the 
point  of  transition  from  that  part  of  the  discourse  which  relates  to  the  catas- 
trophe of  Judaism,  to  that  which  relates  to  the  judgment,  at  the  43d  verse 


ROBINSON  ON  MATT.   24:   29 — Bl.  315 

of  the  24t}i  chapter.  Now  let  the  reader  take  his  Testament  and  examine 
this  transition  point.  The  42d  verse,  which  the  Doctor  admits  belongs  to 
the  former  division  of  the  discourse,  enjoins  upon  the  disciples  to  watch^  be- 
cause they  knew  not  what  hour  their  Lord  would  come.  The  43d  verse  illus- 
trates the  necessity  of  ivatching^  by  the  example  of  the  good  man  of  the  house 
and  the  thief.  Here  certainly  is  no  change  of  discourse.  Watching  is  the 
key  note  still.  The  44th  verse  is  almost  a  hteral  repetition  of  the  42d.  '  Be 
ye  also  ready,  for  in  such  an  hour  as  ye  think  not  the  Son  of  man  cometh.' 
What  conceivable  reason  is  there  for  supposing  that  the  coming  of  the  Son 
of  man  here  alluded  to,  is  not  the  same  as  that  mentioned  in  the  42d  verse 
— as  also  in  the  39th,  37th,  30th,  and  27th  verses  ?  If  there  is  a  change  of 
meaning  here,  the  discourse  is  an  egregious  imposition;  for  there  is  no  change 
of  language,  and  no  hint  of  any  change  of  meaning.  From  the  45th  verse 
the  remainder  of  the  chapter  stands  in  undeniable  connection  with  what  goes 
before,  i.  e.,  as  w^e  have  seen,  with  the  coming  of  Christ  at  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  The  25th  chapter  commences  with — '  Then  shall  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  be  likened  unto  ten  virgins.'  This  points  directly  back  to  the 
great  event  of  the  preceding  chapter.  The  whole  parable  of  the  ten  virgins 
therefore  belongs  to  the  discourse  on  the  advent  connected  with  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.  This  brings  us  to  the  12th  verse.  The  13th  verse  is 
another  repetition,  almost  word  for  word,  of  the  44th  and  42d  verses  of  the 
preceding  chapter.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  authority  for  referring  it  to 
any  event  but  that  announced  in  Matt.  24:  27,  30,  &c.  The  parable  of  the 
talents  that  follows,  from  the  14th  to  the  30th  verses,  is  confessedly  a  sequel 
to  the  parable  of  the  ten  virgins,  and  belongs  to  the  same  train  of  thought. 
We  are  sure,  then,  that  all  that  goes  before  the  31st  verse  of  the  25tli  chap- 
ter, is  part  of  the  discourse  relating  to  the  coming  of  Christ  at  the  desti-uc- 
tion  of  Jerusalem.  But  it  is  manifest  that  the  31st  verse  introduces  a  new 
train  of  thought.  '  When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  &c,,  [this 
is  the  same  coming  as  that  which  is  the  subject  of  the  whole  preceding  dis- 
course,] then  shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory.'  Here  is  a  new  ac- 
tion. Coming  was  the  previous  theme.  Now  sitting  on  the  throne — a 
continuous  administration  of  government,  is  the  subject  of  discourse.  '  And 
before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  nations.'  It  is  not  stated  how  long  a  period 
this  gathering  will  occupy.  It  may,  for  aught  that  appears  in  the  text,  have 
been  the  work  of  the  past  eighteen  hundred  years.  In  order  that  he  may 
thus  gather  all  nations,  he  must  first '  put  down  all  rule  and  all  authority  and 
power ;'  and  this  is  represented  by  Paul  as  the  business  of  his  whole  media- 
torial reign.  (See  1  Cor.  15:  24.)  The  separation  and  the  award  of  des- 
tinies described  in  the  remainder  of  the  25th  chapter,  is  the  ^roi^er  judgment ; 
and  this,  in  our  view,  is  yet  future.  We  recognize  in  the  predictions  of  the 
24th  and  25th  of  Matthew,  two  judgments — one  at  the  beginning,  and  the 
other  at  the  end  of  Christ's  mediatorial  reign.  With  this  theory,  we  find 
plain  sailing  through  those  chapters,  as  well  as  through  many  other  regions 
of  scripture  which  have  long  been  famous  for  perils  and  shipwrecks. 

We  confess  we  cannot  but  be  astonished  at  the  pertinacity  with  which  the 
churches  and  their  great  men  keep  themselves  away  from  the  marrow  of  the 


S16  *  mistake'  of  the  apostles. 

truth  in  relation  to  the  second  coming  of  Christ.  The  simple  idea  that  he 
actually  came  according  to  his  promise,  and  commenced  the  judgment  m  the 
ivorld  of  souls,  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  seems  to  be 
avoided,  as  though  it  were  forbidden  fruit.  The  commentators  of  Germany 
and  this  country  go  around  and  around  it,  and  seem  to  be  ever  drawing 
nearer  to  it.  How  they  keep  from  hitting  it,  we  cannot  tell.  But  somehow 
they  never  touch  it.  The  old  ways  of  managing  the  24th  of  Matthew  are  all 
abandoned.  The  double-sense  scheme  is  scouted  at  Andover.  Twisting  the 
word  generation  is  given  up.  Still  the  learned  come  to  no  conclusion  that  is 
satisfactory  to  themselves  or  to  one  another.  In  Germany,  where  skepticism 
is  licensed,  one  wise  man  thinks  the  evangelists  misreported  Christ.  Another 
thinks  Christ  mistook  the  purport  of  his  own  visions,  and  misreported  the 
Holy  Ghost.  In  this  country,  Robinson  finds  a  dubious  history  of  Jewish 
wars  subsequent  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  forthwith  applies  to 
them  the  splendid  prophecy  of  the  second  coming.     And  Bush  thinks  that 

*  the  grand  nodus  of  this  remarkable  prophecy  remains  yet  unsolved.'  When 
will  all  this  end  ?     Is  not  the  long  delusion  of  Christendom  on  this  subject, 

*  a  veil  on  the  heart,'*  which  mere  learning  and  critical  sagacity  cannot  rend  ? 


§44.    THE  'MISTAKE'  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

It  is  becoming  generally  known  and  conceded,  that  the  apostles  expected 
and  taught  that  Christ  would  come  the  second  time  and  judge  the  quick  and 
dead  within  their  own  lifetime.  If  he  did  not  come,  as  the  popular  theolo- 
gians teach,  it  is  manifest  that  the  apostles  entertained  and  promulgated  a 
monstrous  error,  and  are  to  be  classed  with  the  Millerites  as  the  dupes  and 
disseminators  of  a  false  prophecy.  The  inevitable  alternative  before  the  re- 
ligious world  is  this  :  either  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  second  advent  did 
take  place  at  the  close  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  or  the  credit  of  the  apos- 
tles for  inspiration,  and  even  common  discretion  and  honesty,  must  be  given 
to  the  winds.  An  attempt  will  doubtless  be  made  to  evade  this  alternative 
by  softening  and  apologizing  for  the  alleged  mistake  of  the  first  followers  of 
Christ.  But  no  apology  can  possibly  be  framed  for  them,  which  would  not 
be  equally  good  for  such  false  prophets  as  Miller ;  and  no  thinking  person 
icould  trust  any  part  of  their  testimony  as  inspired,  after  finding  them  guilty 
of  false  witness  in  relation  to  a  matter  so  important  as  the  second  advent. — 
Their  testimony  on  this  subject  is  inextricably  interwoven  with  the  whole 
web  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  if  they  spoke  at  random  here,  nobody  can 
tell  where  they  spoke  by  inspiration. 

That  our  readers  may  see  the  best  and  the  worst  of  the  case  which  is  made 
for  the  apostles  by  those  who  are  beginning  to  teach  that  they  were  in  a  mis- 
take about  the  second  advent,  we  will  present  an  extract  from  Mr.  Bush's 


*  mistake'  of  the  apostles.  817 

work  on  the  Resurrection,  in  which,  after  unequivocally  charging  the  error 
upon  them,  he  undertakes  to  '  trammel  up  the  consequence.'  In  his  remarks 
on  the  language  of  Paul  in  1  Cor.  15:  50 — 53,  '  We  shall  not  all  sleep,' 
&c.,  he  assumes  that  the  apostle  erroneously  imagined  that  the  resurrection 
was  very  near,  cites  with  apparent  approbation  a  sarcastic  paragraph  from 
Gibbon  relating  to  this  mistake,  (which  may  be  found  in  a  note  to  the  article 
on  the  Second  Coming,  p.  283,)  and  adduces  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Watts 
to  the  fact  that  '  the  Christians  of  the  first  age  did  generally  expect  tho 
second  coming  of  Christ  to  judgment,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  in 
that  very  age  wherein  it  was  foretold.'     He  then  proceeds  as  follows : 

"To  all  this  we  are  aware  it  may  be  objected,  ftiat  it  impugns  the  inspiration 
and  infallibility  of  the  sacred  writers.  If  they  labored  under  a  mistake  on  this 
point,  how  can  they  be  said  to  have  been  prompted  by  the  unerring  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  ?  And  if  they  have  mistaken  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  in  regard 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  second  advent,  why  may  they  not  have  mistaken  it  on 
other  doctrines,  and  thus  the  church  be  left  without  an  infallible  standard  of  truth? 

"To  the  objection  thus  urged  we  reply,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  does  not  pre- 
sent a  fair  issue.  The  question  is  not  whether  the  apostles  have  erroneously 
represented  any  doctrine  which  they  were  inspired  to  deliver,  but  how  far  their 
inspiration  extended.  The  sacred  writers  were  made  the  subjects,  or  rather  the 
organs,  of  special  revelations — revelations  lying  entirely  without  the  compass  of 
their  own  unassisted  faculties.  These  revelations  they  must  be  admitted  to  have 
correctly  and  infallibly  reported.  In  the  nature  of  the  case  it  could  not  be  oth- 
erwise. The  revelations  were  not  their  own — were  not  the  product  of  their 
own  intelligence,  nor  required,  in  fact,  their  own  cognizance.  They  were  the 
instruments  through  which  the  Spirit  of  God  spake,  and  we  know  not  how  to 
conceive  the  possibility  of  a  mistake  unless  the  Spirit  himself  were  mistaken, 
which  it  is  blasphemy  to  suppose.  So  far  then  as  the  revelations  were  con- 
cerned, the  apostles  must  of  course  be  considered  as  having  spoken  with  abso- 
lute inerrancy.  But  these  revelations,  as  made  to  the  sacred  writers,  did  not 
include  every  thing  :  they  did  not  even  include  every  thing  connected  with  them, 
as  for  instance  the  attribute  of  time.  There  are  cases,  indeed,  where  the  time 
of"  certain  events  forms  the  special  subject-matter  of  the  revelation  and  the 
record  ;  but  in  numerous  instances  the  event  was  revealed  without  any  intima- 
tion of  the  time.  So  also  of  the  precise  manner  of  the  accomplishment.  This 
did  not  always  enter  into  the  materiel  of  the  announcements  which  they  were 
prompted  to  utter.  Accordingly,  we  learn  that  the  prophets  *  inquired  and 
sediXchQ^  A'\\\ger\i\y  what  or  what  manner  of  time ^  the  spirit  which  was  in  thera 
did  signify  when  it  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glory 
that  should  follow.'  Now  it  is  easy  to  understand  that  they  may  have  infallibly 
reported  all  that  was  actually  revealed  to  them  or  through  them,  and  yet  they 
may  not  have  been  infallible  in  the  construction  which  they  may  have  put  upon 
the  concomitant  circumstances  of  the  matters  that  they  were  to  make  known. 
Otherwise,  what  occasion  was  there  for  the  *  diligent  search'  which  their  spirits 
were  prompted  to  accomplish  ?  Acting  as  the  organs  of  certain  divine  com- 
munications, it  would  be  natural  that  they  should  exercise  their  thoughts  upon 
the  themes  that  thus  expressed  themselves  through  them.  But  the  judgments 
which  they  personally  formed  on  these  disclosures,  being  distinct  from  the  truths 
themselves,  may  not  have  been  free  from  error,  simply  for  the  reason,  that  they 
did  not  come  really  within  the  scope   of  their   inspiration.     The  mind    of  the 


318 

Spirit  is  one  thing,  and  their  personal  view  of  its  meaning  is  another  ;  and  it  ia 
very  conceivable  that  we,  from  having  more  ample  data,  may  be  better  able  to 
judge  of  this  meaning  than  they  were.  Who  can  doubt  that  John  the  Baptist 
wa«  better  able  to  understand  Isaiah's  or  David's  language  respecting  the  first 
coming  of  Christ  than  were  Isaiah  ur  David  themselves  ?  We  contend  therefore, 
that  it  does  not  truly  detract  from  Paul's  claim  to  inspiration  that  he  should  not 
have  understood  what  was  not  revealed,  or  that  he  should  have  so  stated  what 
was  revealed  as  to  evince  that  he  had  in  some  respects  mistaken  its  true  purport 
— that  he  should  have  put  upon  it  a  sense  which  we  now  know  to  be  erronous. 
This  he  may  have  done,  and  still  leave  the  main  announcement  in  its  full  integrity. 

"  In  this  view  we  are  happy  to  be  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  Mr.  Barnes, 
in  his  remarks  on  the  very  passage  we  are  now  considering. 

"  '  I  do  not  know  that  the  proper  doctrine  of  inspiration  suffers,  if  we  admit 
that  the  apostles  were  ignorant  of  the  exact  time  when  the  world  would  close  ; 
or  even  that  in  regard  to  the  precise  period  when  that  would  take  place,  they 
might  be  in  error.  The  following  considerations  may  be  suggested  on  this  sub- 
ject, showing  that  the  claim  to  inspiration  did  not  extend  to  the  knowledge  of 
this  fact.  (1.)  They  were  not  omniscient  :  and  there  is  no  more  absurdity  in 
supposing  that  they  were  ignorant  on  this  subject  than  in  regard  to  any  other. 
Inspiration  extended  to  the  order  of  future  events,  and  not  to  the  times.  There 
is  in  the  scriptures  no  statement  of  the  time  when  the  world  would  close.  (2.) 
Future  events  were  made  to  pass  before  the  mind  of  the  prophets,  as  in  a  land- 
scape. The  order  of  the  images  may  be  distinctly  marked,  but  the  times  may 
not  be  designated.  And  even  events  which  may  occur  in  fact  at  different  pe- 
riods, may  in  vision  appear  to  be  near  each  other  ;  as  in  a  landscape,  objects 
which  are  in  fact  separated  by  distant  intervals,  like  the  riHges  of  a  mountain, 
may  appear  to  lie  clos»j  to  each  other.  (3.)  The  Savior  expressly  said,  that  it 
was  not  designed  that  they  should  hnow  when  future  events  would  occur.  Thus, 
after  his  resurrection,  in  answer  to  an  inquiry  whether  he  then  would  restore  the 
kingdom  to  Israel,  he  said,  (  Acts  1:7,)'  It  is  notybr  you  to  know  the  times  or 
the  seasons  which  the  Father  has  put  in  his  own  power.'  The  Savior  said  that 
even  he  himself,  as  man,  was  ignorant  in  regard  to  the  exact  time  in  which  fu- 
ture events  would  occur.  '  But  of  that  day  and  that  hour,  knoweth  no  man,  no, 
not  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father.'  Mark  13: 
32.  (4.)  The  apostles  were  in  fact  ignorant  and  mistaken  in  regard  to,  at  least, 
the  time  of  the  occurrence  oi  one  future  event,  the  death  of  John.  Jno.  21:  23. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  departure  from  the  proper  doctrine  of  inspiration,  in  sup- 
posing that  the  apostles  were  not  inspired  on  these  subjects,  and  that  they  might 
be  ignorant  like  others.  The  proper  ortZer  of  events  they  state  truly  and  exactly  ; 
the  exact  time,  God  did  not,  for  wise  reasons,  intend  to  make  known.' 

"  We  remark,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  present  case  is  peculiar.  Our 
Lord's  second  coming  and  its  associated  events  are  described  in  highly  symbolic 
and  prophetic  terms,  taken  mostly  from  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophets,  and  so  framed  as  to  be  intrinsically  obscure  and  capable  of  being  er- 
roneously apprehended.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  Christ  himself  distinctly  laid 
open  to  his  disciples  the  nature  of  that  event.  .  Consequently,  as  the  predictions 
respecting  the  first  coming  were  so  worded  as  to  be  liable  to  misunderstanding 
before  iie  came,  even  by  the  very  prophets  themselves  who  recorded  them,  so  the 
idea  seems  entirely  reasonable,  that  the  predictions  respecting  his  second  coming 
may  not  have  been  perfectly  understood  in  all  respects  even  by  the  apostles  and 
the  primitive  Christians.     And  why  does  their  ignorance  on  this  single  point-^ 


819 

the  time  and  manner  of  the  second  advent — any  more  invalidate  their  inspiration 
than  a  like  ignorance  in  the  Old  Testament  writers  invalidates  theirs  ?  The 
apostle  in  the  present  instance  discloses  the  grand  fundamental  fact,  that  at  the 
time  to  which  the  Holy  Spirit  refers  there  should  be  a  translation  of  the  living 
saints.  This  he  has  stated  infallibly,  because  he  spake  as  he  was  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  and  how  could  he  make  any  other  than  an  infallible  suggestion  ? 
But  we  have  no  evidence  that  the  precise  time  of  this  event  was  any  where  made 
known,  and  therefore  it  was  to  be  expected  that  Paul  should  assign  it  to  that 
epoch  which  he  supposed  to  be  intended  when  our  Savior  said  that  '  this  genera, 
tion  shall  not  pass  away  till  all  these  things  shall  be  fulfilled.'  Is  it  affirmed  that 
this  was  misleading  his  readers  ?  Then  we  would  ask  whether  our  Lord  is  not 
equally  to  be  charged,  in  the  above  words,  with  misleading  his  readers  ?  We 
well  know  by  what  criticisms  upon  the  word  '  generation,'  it  is  attempted  to 
rebut  the  force  of  the  natural  construction,  and  make  it  harmonize  with  an  ac- 
complishment that  should  first  ensue  hundreds  or  thousands  of  years  after  the 
lifetime  of  the  disciples.  But  after  all  it  is  impossible  to  explain  away  the  native 
and  genuine  import  of  the  phrase.  It  is  only  by  the  most  downright  violence 
that  we  can  elicit  from  the  words  any  thing  but  the  declaration  that  the  event 
predicted  should  occur,  or  rather  should  begin  to  occur,  in  the  term  of  the  nat- 
ural lives  of  the  then  existing  generation  of  men,  and  consequently  that  the 
event,  whatever  it  were,  did  thus  occur  within  the  period  specified ;  that  is, 
that  there  was,  in  some  sense,  a  glorious  coming  of  Christ  at  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  and  the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish  state.  But  it  does  not  follow  from 
this  that  the  purport  of  the  entire  series  of  prophecies  contained  in  the  24th  and 
25th  of  Matthew  was  exhausted  in  that  event ;  for  he  says  in  the  same  connec- 
tion, in  the  parallel  prediction  of  Luke,  that  Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  under 
foot  of  the  Gentiles  till  the  tmies  of  the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled  ;  and  this  carries 
us  over  a  long  tract  of  centuries  before  we  reach  the  period  of  the  full  accom- 
plishment." 

REMARKS. 
This  is  an  argument  on  a  false  issue.  The  true  point  of  difficulty  in  the 
case  is  entirely  evaded,  both  by  Mr.  Bush  and  by  Mr.  Barnes.  The  question 
is  not  simply  '  Jiow  far  the  inspiration  of  the  apostles  extended^  or  whether 
they  might  not  have  been  ignorant  in  regard  to  such  a  point  as  the  time  of 
the  second  advent,  consistently  with  the  integrity  of  their  authority  as  inspired 
teachers.  We  freely  admit  that  they  were  not  omniscient ;  that  their  inspi- 
ration was  limited  ;  that  the^  w^ere  ignorant  on  many  points.  Eut  the  true- 
questions  are  these :  Did  they  go  beyond  the  limits  of  their  inspiration  in 
their  testimony  f  Did  they  speak  of.  things  which  they  understood  not,  and 
record  their  random  testimony  as  the  word  of  God  ?  Did  they  bequeath  to 
the  church  a  New  Testament  tainted  ^vitli  falsehood  ?  If  they  did,  how  are 
we  to  discriminate  between  the  true  and  the  false  parts  of  their  testimony, 
and  how  can  we  trust  them  as  honest  and  safe  guides  of  faith  ?  It  is  quite 
admissible  that  they  were  ignorant  on  any  given  point ;  but  it  is  not  admis- 
sible that,  being  ignorant,  they  should  dogmatize  and  utter  falsehood  as  the 
word  of  God  on  that  point,  and  still  be  regarded  as  oracles  of  inspiration,  or 
even  good  men.  'A  fool,  when  he  holdeth  his  peace  is  counted  wise.'  If 
the  apostles  had  no  revelation  in  regard  to  the  time  of  the  second  coming,  as 
discreet  and  honest  men  they  would  have  held  their  peace  on  that  subject, 
and  their  testimony  on  other  subjects,  in  respect  to  which  they  had  revelations, 


820  ^mistake'  of  the  apostles. 

would  not  have  been  discredited.  It  is  not  necessary  that  a  witness  in  court 
should  be  omniscient,  in  order  that  his  affirmations  may  be  received  as  truth. 
But  it  is  necessary  that  he  should  confine  his  testimony  to  what  he  knows. 
If  he  ventures  beyond  his  knowledge,  into^conjectures,  and  utters,  under  oath, 
as  truth,  statements  about  matters  of  wliich  he  is  ignorant,  the  discovery  of 
the  falsehood  of  those  statements  vitiates  his  whole  testimony  and  exposes 
him  to  the  penalties  of  perjury.  This  is'the  very  position  in  which  Mr.  Bush 
places  the  apostles.  The  '  mistake'  which  he  charges  upon  them  is  not  mere 
innocent  ignorance  or  private  misapprehension,  but  presumptuous  public  affir- 
mation on  a  point  about  which  they  knew  nothing, — conjectural  and  false  tes- 
timony before  the  highest  court  in  tKelini verse,  and  under  circumstances 
which  imposed  stronger  obligations  of  cautious  veracity,  than  those  of  any 
oath  required  by  human  tribunals.  Standing  before  men  and  angels  as  the 
accredited  witnesses  of  God,  they  had  not  honesty  and  discretion  enough, 
according  to  Mr.  Bush's  account,  to  hold  their  peace  where  they  were  igno- 
rant, but  like  the  Millerites,  incontinently  proclaimed — 'The  Lord  is  at  hand' 
— '  The  Judge  standeth  at  the  door,'  when  in  fact  the  second  advent  was 
thousands  of  years  distant,  and  left  on  record  in  the  midst  of  their  testimony 
to  all  generations,  a  monstrous  falsehood,  fitted  to  nullify,  by  its  ultimate 
detection,  their  whole  claim  of  inspiration. 

The  case  is  not  relieved  by  appealing  to  the  fact  that  the  '  prophets  [of 
the  Old  Testament]  inquired  and  searched  diligently  zvhat  or  what  manner 
of  time  the  spirit  which  was  in  them  did  signify,  when  it  testified  beforehand 
the  sufierings  of  Christ  and  the  glory  that  should  follow.'  This  fact  indicates 
nothing  like  the  presumption  which  Mr.  B.  imputes  to  the  apostles,  but  the 
contrary — a  cautious," pains-taking  veracity.  It  is  noi  hinted,  and  it  is  not 
true,  that  those  prophets,  in  the  excess  of  their  curiosity  and  self-confidence, 
pitched  upon  some  random  tliepry  about  the  time  of  Christ's  advent,  and  pro- 
claimed it  in  connection  with  their  revelations,  as  God's  verity.  They  '  inr 
quired  mid  searched  diligently  ;'  and  if  the  apostles  had  done  no  more  than 
tliis,  their  credit  would  not  have  suifered,  even  though  their  search  had  been 
fruitless.  But,  according  to  Mr.  B's  doctrine,  they  went  farther,  or  rather 
took  an  opposite  course.  Instead  of  contenting  themselves  with  inquiring 
and  searching  diligently  for  the  time  of  the  secpid  advent,  they  fell  to  dog- 
matizing and  prophesying  about  it,  and  printed  their  fooHsh  mistake  of  two 
thousand  years  «n  the  front  of  the  New  Testament. 

Nor  does  Mr.  Barnes'  suggestion  that '  the  apostles  were  in  fact  ignorant 
and  mistaken  in  regard  to  the  death  of  John,'  relieve  the  case  at  all.  In  the 
first  place,  it  is  not  asserted  in  John  21:  23,  and  it  is  not  certain  from  any 
other  evidence,  that  they  ivere  mistaken  in  supposing  that  John  would  never 
die.  We  have  never  found  any  reason  for  placing  confidence  in  the  church- 
traditions  about  liis  death.  They  contradict  each  other.  The  fact  that  he 
lived  certainly  till  very  near  the  time  appointed  for  the  second  advent,  indi- 
cates to  us  that  he  did  not  sleep,  but  was  changed.  But,  secondly,  admitting 
that  he  did  die,  the  mistake  of  the  apostles  in  regard  to  the  matter,  is  not  at 
all  parallel  to  their  alleged  false  testimony  concerning  the  time  of  the  second 
coming  ;  for  it  occurred  before  they  received  the  Spirit  of  truth — ^before  they 


'MISTAKE*   OF  THE)   AP0STLH3,  321 

were  sent  on  their  missions  as  the  representatives  of  Christ — long  before  they 
undertook  to  add  their  writings  to  the  scriptures.  That  mistake  is  not  an 
important  doctrine,  incorporated  Avith  their  ultimate  apostolic  testimony,  but 
a  fact  in  the  history  of  their  spiritual  minority.  '^The  record  of  It  no  more 
loosens  the  foundations  of  their  subsequent  authority  as  inspired  and  infallible 
writers,  than  does  the  record  of  their  strife  who  should  be  greatest,  or  of  their 
abandonment  of  Christ  at  the  cross.  But  their  supposed  mistake  about  the 
time  of  the  second  coming,  is  part  and  parcel  of  their  final,  deliberate,  official 
testimony,  and  cannot  be  separated  from  their  doctrinal  system  without  de- 
stroying its  whole  texture.  If  they  were  deluded  on  this  point,  they  were 
deluled,  not  as  raw  disciples,  but  as  mature  apostles  ;  and  the  delusion  clung 
to  them  to  the  last.  At  the  very  close  of  John's  earthly  career,  when  '  the 
darkness  was  past  and  the  true  light  shone'  upon  him  ;  when  he  saw  and 
testified  that  '  God  is  light,  and  in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all,'  and  that  '  who- 
ever says  he  has  fellowship  with  him  and  walketh  in  darkness,  is  a  liar ;' 
when  he  distinctly  professed  to  declare  to  believers  only  that  which  he  '  had 
seen  and  heard ;' — even  then  he  announced  in  the  most  positive  and  solemn 
manner,  the  near  approach  of  the  second  advent.  *■  Little  children,'  said  he, 
'it  is^the  LAST  HOUR ;  and  as  ye  have  heard  that  antichrist  shall  come,  even 
now  are  their  many  antichrists  ;  whereby  we  know  that  it  is  the  last  hoiir,\. 
1  John  2: 18.  Messrs.  Bush  and  Barnes  would  liave  us  place  this  announce- 
ment on  a  par  with  the  '  last  warnings'  issued  by  Himes  and  Storrs  just  before 
*  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month  :'  and  yet  they  profess  not  to  impugn 
the  inspiration  of  the  apostles ! 

Indeed  the  case  Avould  be  no  better,  but  rather  worse,  if  genuine  examples 
of  false  doctrine  could  be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  to  render  the  mistake 
about  the  second  coming  probable.  Such  discoveries  would  be  no  apology 
for  that  mistake,  but  would  simply  go  to  discredit  the  whole  book.  If  it  is 
true,  as  Mr.Bash  holds,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  is  a  mixture 
of  divine  revelation  with  fallible  human  Judgments,  then  until  some  method 
shall  be  proposed  by  which  we  can  distinguish  with  certainty  between  the  true 
and  the  counterfeit  bills,  the  whole  mixture  ought  to  be  distrusted.  If  we 
are  to  judge  by  the  '  mistake'  now  before  us,  we  must  conclude  that  the  pack 
of  true  and  false  doctrines  is  completely  shuffled,  so  that  it  is  impossible  for 
any  human  understanding  to  discern  between  them.  When  the  apostles  say, 
I  The  Lord  is  at  hand' — '  The  Judge  standeth  at  the  door' — '  Little  children 
it  is  the  last  hour,' — they  give  us  no  signal,  by  which  we  may  know  that  these 
announcements  are  personal  judgments.  If  we  feel  at  liberty  to  pronounce 
them  such,  we  may  just  as  well  place  their  doctrines  of  the  incarnation  and 
the  atonement  under  the  same  sentence.  And  then  the  Bible  becomes,  what 
the  neologists  would  have  it,  a  mere  plaything  for  critics.  This  is  the  gulf 
into  which  the  churches,  with  Messrs.  Bush  and  Barnes  at  their  head,  must 
soon  plunge,  if  they  persist  in  denying  that  the  second  advent  took  place  at 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

We  repeat,  that  the  mischief  in  the  case  is  not  the  alleged  ignorance  of 
the  apostles,  but  the  incontinence— the  presumption — the  confounding  mix- 
ture of  personal  judgments  with  revelations,  which  is  imputed  to  them.    This 
40 


K  k/r^ 


891  *  mistake'  of  the  apostles. 

i&  the  head  and  front  of  the  offense  of  the  Millerites.  It  has  been  fashionable 
with  some  who  have  not  been  carried  away  by  the  Advent-mania,  to  apologise 
nevertheless  for  the  dupes  and  even  the  leaders  in  that  monstrous  imposture^ 
The  plea  that  has  been  urged  in  their  favor  has  been  that '  they  are  honest 
in  their  delusion.'  We  are  very  willing  to  admit  this  plea  in  extenuation  of 
the  folly  and  guilt  of  the  masses  who  have  occupied  the  secondary  position 
oifoUawej'S  in  the  movement.  But  we  are  more  and  more  convinced  that  it 
is  a  foolish  and  cruel  sort  of  charity  that  extends  the  apology  to  the  leaders. 
It  is  now  manifest  that  the  men  who  took  upon  them  the  responsibihty  of 
sounding'  an  alarm  which  has  driven  multitudes  to  insanity  and  suicide,  and 
has  spiritually  debauched  and  ruined  still  greater  multitudes,  arrogantly  pre- 
tended to  know  what  they  did  not  know,  and  presumptuously  promulgated 
by  argument  and  pretenses  of  revelation,  a  foolish  falsehood.  We  complain 
not  that  they  were  ignorant  in  regard  to  the  time  of  the  second  advent, 
(though  we  can  hardly  conceive  that  any  one  can  deliberately  study  the  24th 
of  Matthew  and  remain  innocently  ignorant  on  the  subject,)  but,  that  being 
ignorant,  they  professed  to  be  wise,  and  stood  forth  on  the  witness-stand  be- 
fore heaven  and  earth,  under  a  virtual  oath  of  veracity,  with  a  random  tes- 
timony in  their  mouths,  pledging  the  word  of  God  for  a  lie.  For  this  we 
have  called  them,  and  still  call  them,  impostors.  And  if  Mr.  Bush's  im- 
putation of  false  testimony  to  the  apostles  were  proved  true,  we  should  be 
obliged  for  the  same  reason  to  call  them  impostors. 

We  demand,  on  behalf  of  the  apostles,  the  benefit  of  the  good  rule  of  law 
that  '  every  man  shall  be  held  innocent  till  he  is  jjroved  guilty.'  Before 
consenting  to  turn  them  in  with  the  perjured  Millerites,  we  claim  the  right 
to  inspect  the  grounds  on  which  they  are  charged  with  the  mistake  which 
renders  the  lame  apologies  of  Messrs.  Bush  and  Barnes  necessary.  How  is 
it  made  certain  that  Christ  did  not  come  the  second  time,  and  accomphsh 
the  first  resurrection  and  judgment,  within  the  lifetime  of  the  primitive 
church  ?  '  We  have  more  ample  data,^  says  Mr.  Bush,  '  and  are  better 
able  to  judge  of  the  meaning  of  the  prophecies  than  the  apostles  were.' — 
What  are  these  '  more  ample  data^?  Have  we  any  new  revelation  ?  None 
at  all.  But  '  we  learn  from  the  event^  says  Mr.  Bush  in  another  passage^ 
*  that  the  prophecies  which  the  apostles  referred  to  a  period  within  their  own 
lifetime,  included  a  vast  extent  of  time.'  Here  is  the  foundation,  and  the 
only  foundation,  of  the  charge  of  mistake.  It  is  ^tlie  evenf  that  has  proved 
the  apostles  liars.  No  external  second  advent,  no  visible  resurrection  and 
judgment,  is  recorded  in  the  Avritings  of  worldly  historians,  as  having  oc- 
curred at  the  close  of  the  Jewish  dispensation  ;  '  therefore  (say  the  wise 
men)  no  advent,  resurrection  or  judgment  took  place  at  that  time,  and  the 
apostles  are  convicted  of  false  prophecy.'  So  says  the  infidel  Gibbon  ;  and 
so  say  the  devout  Bush  and  Barnes.  Now  if  we  look  narrowly  at  the  iiature 
of  the  advent,  resurrection  and  judgment  which  were  predicted  and  expected 
by  the  apostles,  we  shall  see  that  this  is  a  very  small  foundation  for  the  heavy 
charge  which  rests  upon  it.  Christ's  resurrection  was  a  sample  of  the  res- 
urrection expected  by  his  followers.  He  was  the  '  first-fruits,'  and  they 
vrere  to  be  gathered  as  the  general  harvest  at  his  coming.     Was   Christ'^ 


'mistake'  op  tub  apostles.  323 

resurrection  visible  to  the  world  ?  Was  it  recorded  by  worldly  historians  ? 
Mr.  Bush  himself  argues  in  the  very  work  before  us,  at  great  length,  that 
Ohrist  arose  in  his  spiri^i^al  body  and  only  appem^ed  to  his  disciples — not  to 
the  world — as  angels  are  seen,  i.  e.  in  vision.  If  the  fact  that  there  was  no 
visible^  notorious  resurrection  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  is  '  the  event' 
which  proves  the  expectations  of  the  apostles  false,  then  '  the  event'  in  the 
case  of  Christ  proved  his  prediction  of  his  own  resurrection  false.  The  world 
saw  him  no  more  ;  and  the  Jews,  among  whom  he  died,  believe  him  dead  to 
this  day.  The  promised  second  advent  was  to  be  kindred  in  its  nature  to 
the  resurrection.  Christ  was  to  come  '  in  like  manner  as  he  ascended.* 
D^iJ  he  ascend  in  a  material  body  ?  Was  the  event  public  ?  Did  worldly 
historians  record  it  ?  Solhe  judgment  was  to  be  of  course  like  the  resur- 
rection and  the  advent — a  transaction  in  the  spiritual  world.  With  such 
evidence  concerning  the  nature  of  the  events  expected  by  the  apostles,  what 
presumption  it  is  to  accuse  them  of  false  prophecy,  because  there  was  no 
such  physical  parade  at  the  period  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  as  liiiman 
traditions  have  connected  with  the  second  coming  and  the  judgment !  What 
folly  to  make  the  silence  of  man  a  ground  for  impeaching  the  testimony  of 
G-od  !  Will  Mr.  Bush  or  Mr.  Barnes  venture  to  assert  that  Christ  did  not 
come  as  he  ascended  ? — that  there  was  not  a  resurrection  like  his  own  ? — 
that  there  was  not  a  judgment  in  the  resurrection  world^  at  the  close  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation  ?  Do  they  knoiv  any  thing  about  the  matter  ?  Can  they 
know  any  thing  about  it,  except  by  either  believing  the  predictions  of  the 
Bible,  or  by  obtaining  a  new  revelation  ?  The  charge  which  they  have 
brought  against  the  apostles,  recoils  upon  them.  They  are  the  men  thafc 
have  allowed  their  speech  to  go  beyond  their  knowledge. 


§45.     DATE  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.* 

There  is  a  very  simple  way  of  determining  when  the  book  of  Revelations 
was  written.  "VYe  need  not  consult  the  dubious  and  discordant  testimonies  of 
the  Fathers  and  church  historians.  The  book  itself  contains  a  decisive  index 
of  its  own  date. 

Christ  said  to  John,  in  the  commencement  of  his  vision — '  Write  the  things 
which  thou  hast  seen,  and  the  things  which  are,  and  the  things  which  shall 
be  hereafter.'  Chap.  1:  19.  The  things  which  John  had  '  seen'  are  recorded 
in  the  first  chapter.  The  events  then  in  progress —  the  '  things  that  are' — 
are  recorded  in  the  second  and  third  chapters,  which  describe  the  state  of  the 
seven  churches.  The  things  which  were  then  future,  are  introduced  in  the 
fourth  chapter.  '  Come  up  hither,'  said  the  voice  to  John,  '  and  I  will  show 
thee  things  which  must  he  hereafter.''  4:  1.  John  saw  his  visions,  then,  be- 
fore the  events  predicted  in  the  fourth  chapter  and  onward  took  place.  And 
it  is  evident  that  he  wrote  his  book  at  the  time  he  saw  the  visions,  from  a  cir- 
cumstance recorded  in  the  tenth  chapter,  verse  4.  '  When  the  seven  thun- 
ders had  uttered  their  voices,'  says  he,  'Itvas  about  to  write.''  This  shows 
that  he  noted  down  the  things  he  saw  as  soon  as  they  had  passed.  He  wrote 
the  Apocalypse  then  while  the  events  introduced  in  the  fourth  chapter  and 
described  in  the  rest  of  the  book  were  yet  future.  Now  if  we  can  ascertain 
when  some  of  the  first  of  those  events  which  were  then  future,  actually  trans- 
pired, we  shall  have  a  fixed  date,  before  Avhich  the  Apocalypse  must  have 
been  written.     Let  us  then  look  into  the  '  things  which  must  be  hereafter.' 

The  fourth  chapter  describes  the  magnificence  of  the  divine  presence.  In 
the  fifth  chapter  the  book  with  seven  seals  is  introduced,  and  the  Lamb,  who 
only  is  found  worthy,  receives  it,  and  prepares  to  open  the  seals.  All  this 
is  only  the  introduction  to  the  subsequent  disclosures.  The  predictions  of 
the  Apocalypse  properly  begin  at  the  sixth  chapter.  The  series  of  events 
which  follow  the  successive  openings  of  the  seven  seals  are  those  which  are 

*  As  our  views  of  the  second  coming-  involve  the  conclusion  that  the  book  of  Revela- 
tions was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  this  was  very  generally  denied 
by  our  opponents  when  we  first  broached  our  theory.  We  apprehend  a  change  is  com- 
ing over  public  opinion  on  this  point.  Prof.  Stuart,  in  a  late  article  on  the  Apocalypse, 
says : — 

"That  it  was  written  under  the  bloody  reign  of  Nero,  or  shortly  after,  is  now  a  matter 
agreed  upon  by  nearly  all  recent  critics  who  have  studied  the  literature  of  this  book. — 
The  exemption  of  Christian  Jews,  who  are  sealed  in  their  foreheads  as  the  servants  of 
God,  as  related  in  chap.  7;  (he  measurement  of  the  inner  sanctuary  of  the  temple,  to  be 
presr^rved  from  impt-nding  destruction,  ch.  11:1,  2;  the  express  naming  of  the  city  to 
be  destroyed,  as  Uhe  place  where  our  Lord  was  crucified,'  ch.  11:  8;  these  and  tAhev 
concurrent  circumstances  put  it  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  Apocalypse  was 
writlen  btforc  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  And  if  all  this  were  .not  suflicient,  the  pas- 
sage in  ch.  17:  10,  which  declares  that^oe  kings  or  emperors  of  Rome  had  already  lal!- 
en,  while  the  sixth  is  reigning  when  the  writer  is  composing  the  book,  marks  the  period 
too  definitely  to  be  called  in  question.  It  might  easily  be  shown,  moreover,  that  the 
tenor  »)f  the  book  renders  it  necessary  for  us  to  suppose  that  the  persecution  was  actual- 
ly raging  when  it  was  written  ;  and  consequently,  it  must  have  been  writlen  during- 
Nero's  lile,  for  persecution  ceased  immediateiy  after  his  death."— BMo^/teca  ;Sacr«,  No. 
II.  p.  349. 


DATE   OP  THE   APOCALYPSE.  325 

to  bo  examined  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  our  first  boundary.  At  the  open- 
ing of  the  sixth  seal  (ver.  12 — 17)  we  find  a  description  of  the  advent 
of  Christ  in  language  identical  with  that  in  Matt.  24:  29,  30.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  John  quoted  the  words  of  Christ,  and  that  both  referred  to  the 
same  transaction.  But  we  find  it  declared  in  Matt.  24:  29,  that  the  advent 
there  described  was  to  be  '  immediately  after'*  the  awful  tribulation  which 
ended  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  events,  then,  which  followed 
the  opening  of  the  sixth  seal,  took  place  immediately  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  But  the  opening,  not  only  of  the  sixth  seal,  but  of  all  the  seals, 
was  future  when  John  wrote  the  Apocalypse.  He  must  have  written,  there- 
fore, some  considerable  time  before  an  event  which  happened  immediately 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  This  creates  a  strong  presumption  at 
least,  that  he  wrote  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

But  let  us  examine  the  events  of  the  first  five  seals,  which  occupied  the 
period  between  the  time  of  John's  writing,  and  the  second  advent.  As  those 
events  came  '  immediately'  before  that  advent,  we  may  fairly  anticipate  that 
they  are  the  very  tribulations  which  in  Matthew  are  placed  immediately  before 
it.  Accordingly  we  find  that  the  first  five  seals  actually  usher  in  a  train  of 
awful  tribulations,  closely  corresponding  in  order  and  kind  to  those  described 
in  Matt.  24:  G' — 22.  The  meaning  of  the  symbol  of  the  first  seal  is  not  very 
clear.  But  the  second  seal  (ver.  4)  introduces  the  war  spirit,  corresponding 
to  the  prediction  in  Matthew  of  '  wars  and  rumors  of  -wars' — '  nation  rising 
against  nation,  and  kingdom  against  kingdom.'  The  third  seal  introduces 
the  famine  spirit :  and  in  Matthew  '  famines  in  divers  places'  follow  the  wars. 
It  must  be  borne  in  mind  too  that  famine  was  one  of  the  principal  elements 
of  misery  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  its  downfall.  The  fourth  seal  ushers 
in  the  spirit  of  universal  destruction — a  combination,  of  war,  famine,  pesti- 
lence, and  every  other  agent  of  death.  Nothing  could  more  vividly  picture 
the  tribulation  which  Christ  declared  should  be  '  such  as  never  was  since  the 
beginning  of  the  Avorld.'  Matt.  24:  21.  At  the  opening  of  the  fifth  seal  the 
souls  of  the  martyrs  are  discovered,  calling  on  God  to  avenge  them.  These 
are  evidently  they  who  suffered  death  in  the  dreadful  persecutions  which  in 
Matthew  are  described  as  following  or  attending  the  wars,  famines,  and  pes- 
tilences of  that  awful  time.  Ver.  9.  In  our  view  there  is  evidence,  amount- 
ing to  demonstration,  that  Christ's  prediction  in  Matt.  24,  extending  from 
the  6th  to  the  31st  verse,  is  in  all  substantial  particulars  identical  with  John's 
vision  in  the  sixth  and  seventh  chapters  of  the  Apocalypse.  Since,  then,  it 
is  certain  that  John  wrote  before  the  events  of  the  sixth  chapter,  it  is  clear 
that  he  wrote  before  the  awful  tribulations  which  are  described  in  Matt.  24: 
6 — 22,  i.  e.  before  the  final  agonies  of  Judaism,  and  the  destruction  of  the 
Holy  City. 

This  fixes  the  chronological  boundary  on  one  side.  We  know  that  the  date 
of  the  Apocalypse  is  earher  than  A.  I).  70.  The  only  element  of  calcula- 
tion which  we  have  for  the  boundary  on  the  other  side,  is  contained  in  the 
introduction  to  the  book,  (chap.  1:  1 — 3,)  which  announces  that  the  things 
revealed  in  it  '  must  shortly  come  to  pass.'  If  it  is  considered  that  the 
events  of  the  sixth  chapter  are  the  first  of  those  which  the  book  reveals  as 


326  SCOPE   OF  THE  APOCALYPSE. 

future,  and  therefore  are  nearest  in  order  to  the  time  when  John  wrote,  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  above  annunciation  attaches  first  and  most  emphatically 
to  them.  We  may  conclude  therefore  that  the  Apocalypse  was  written 
'  shortly'  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  i.  e.,  at  a  time  when  the  un- 
precedented tribulations  of  the  final  scene  were  the  future  events  next  in 
order.  It  certainly  was  not  written  after  A.  D.  70,  and  it  certainly  was 
not  written  long  before. 

This  result  is  confirmed  by  many  passages  in  the  addresses  to  the  seven 
churches.  Among  the  precursors  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  Christ 
predicted  a  great  declension  among  Christians.  '  Because  iniquity  shall 
abound,'  said  he,  '  the  love  of  many  shall  wax  cold.'  Matt.  24:  12.  Ac- 
cordingly John's  record  of  the  '  things  that  are,'  exhibits  the  churches  of 
Asia  in  a  state  that  exactly  corresponds  to  this  prediction.  The  Ephesian 
church  had  '  left  its  first  love.'  The  church  of  Sardis  had  '  a  name  to  live, 
and  was  dead.'  The  Laodiceans  were  '  neither  cold  nor  hot.'  Again,  those 
addresses  abound  with  allusions  to  Christ's  coming,  and  represent  it  as  very 
near.  'I  come  quickly^ — is  the  oft-repeated  warning.  (See  chap.  2:  5,  16, 
25,  3:  3,  11.)  All  this  exactly  harmonizes  with  the  idea  that  John  wrote 
in  that  predicted  dark  period  of  the  church  which  immediately  preceded  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  second  advent  of  Christ. 


vi'SajS' 


§  46.     SCOPE  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.  # 

The  book  of  Revelations,  as  a  whole,  is  simply  a  vision  of  the  entire  judg- 
ment of  mankind,  including  the  first  judgment  at  the  second  advent,  the  in- 
termediate reign  of  Christ,  and  the  second  judgment  at  the  end  of  the  times 
of  the  Gentiles.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  filling  up  of  the  outline  sketched 
in  the  twenty-fourth  and  twenty-fifth  chapters  of  Matthew.  The  great  facts 
announced  in  those  chapters  are — 1,  the  destruction  of  Judaism  ;  2,  the 
coming  of  Christ  to  destroy  his  enemies,  and  gather  his  elect ;  3,  his  reign, 
and  the  gathering  and  separation  of  all  nations  ;  4,  the  final  judgm.ent.  These 
also  are  the  great  facts  of  the  Apocalypse.  The  sixth  and  seventh  chapters 
of  that  book  (which  are  the  beginning  of  its  prophecies)  announce  the  de- 
struction of  Judaism,  the  coming  of  Christ  to  destroy  his  enemies,  and  the 
gathering  of  the  elect.  At  the  eighth  chapter  commences  a  series  of  move- 
ments among  the  nations,  introduced  by  the  successive  soundings  of  the  seven 
trumpets.  These  movements  are  to  be  referred  to  the  agency  of  Christ, 
whose  accession  to  the  throne  is  announced  in  the  previous  chapters.  These 
are  the  transactions  of  his  intermediate  reign — the  gathering  and  arrange- 
ment of  the  nations.  At  the  end  of  the  eleventh  chapter  the  sounding  of  the 
seventh  trumpet  introduces  the  final  and  universal  judgment.  This  is  the 
]plot  of  the  book.     All  the  other  visions  are  bounded  by  this  outline,  and 


SCOPE  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.  827 

either  exhibit  the  same  events  in  different  aspects,  or  collateral  trains  of 
events  occupying  the  same  period.  The  first  and  last  judgments,  -yyith  the- 
events  between  them,  are  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  Avhole. 

In  calculating  the  chronology  of  this  great  outline,  we  take,  for  our  first 
element,  the  period  of  the  first  judgment.  This  is  an  ascertained  date — a 
fixed  point  on  the  chart  of  time.  We  know,  by  the  explicit  testimony  of 
Christ  in  the  twenty-fourth  of  Matthew,  as  well  as  by  the  concurrent  allusions 
of  the  whole  New  Testament,  and  indeed  by  the  announcements  of  the  sixth 
chapter  of  the  Apocalypse  itself,  that  the  first  judgment  immediately  succeed- 
ed the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  in  A.  D.  70. 

The  next  question  is, — How  far  is  it  from  this  fixed  point  to  the  second 
judgment  ?  In  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Revelations  we  have  an  undoubted 
account  of  the  second  jugdment,  and  in  connection  with  it  a  statement  of  the 
events  which  precede  it,  with  a  general  measurement  of  the  time  between  the 
first  and  second  judgments.  We  are  there  informed  that  the  primitive  church 
*  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand  y ear s^  after  their  complete  victory- 
over  Satan  by  the  first  judgment,  and  before  the  second  judgment.  This 
makes  it  certain  that  Christ's  intermediate  reign  occupies  at  least  a  thousand 
years. 

There  is  no  good  reason  to  doubt  that  the  language  in  this  case  is  to  be 
taken  literally.  Prophetic  statements  of  time  are  certainly  never  less  than 
literal.  If  there  were  any  doubt  in  the  case,  it  would  be  whether  w^e  ought 
not  to  reckon  days  for  years,  and  so  expand  the  prophetic  period  of  a  thou- 
sand years  into  360,000  years.  This  is  the  view  of  some  interpreters.  But 
there  is  certainly  no  authority  or  occasion  for  such  an  expansion.  It  is  in 
vain  to  say  that  the  announcement  of  the  thousand  years  occurs  in  a  symbol- 
ical vision,  and  is  therefore  to  be  understood  symbolically  ;  for,  however  the 
rules  of  scolastic  rhetoric  may  condemn  the  mixture  of  symbols  with  literal 
objects,  it  is  a  fact  which  can  be  proved  by  numberless  examples,  that  in  the 
Apocalypse  symbols  and  literal  objects  are  mingled  without  scruple.  In  the 
very  passage  in  question,  while  the  dragon,  the  chain,  the  key,  the  bottomless 
pit,  &c.,  are  evidently  symbolical,  the  martyrs,  the  Christ,  the  living  and 
reigning,  &c.,  are  as  evidently  literal.  And  the  announcement  of  the  thou- 
sand  years  is  immediately  connected  with  these  literal  persons  and  events. 
There  is  therefore  no  necessity  of  understanding  the  thousand  years  as  mean- 
ing 360,000  ;  and,  without  a  necessity,  the  very  magnitude  of  the  latter 
number  is  sufficient  to  exclude  it. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  the  statement  of  the  thousand  years  is  not 
to  be  taken  as  an  exact  measurement  of  the  time  between  the  first  and  second 
judgments.  The  number  itself  in  the  first  place  indicates  that  it  was  chosen^ 
as  a  convenient  general  estimate.  The  martyrs  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ 
in  round  numbers  a  thousand  years,  more  or  less.  In  the  next  place,  the 
vision  leaves  a  considerable  margin  of  events  before  the  thousand  years  begin^ 
and  another  after  they  end,  which  are  to  be  reckoned  in  making  up  the  sum. 
of  the  time  between  the  first  and  second  judgments.  It  is  not  stated  how 
long  it  was  after  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  before  Satan  w^as  bound  and; 
the  complete  triumph  of  the  primitive  church  commenced ;  nor  how  long  it: 


828  ^  SCOPE   OF  THE   APOCALYPSE. 

was  before  the  second  judgment  that  Satan  was  loosed  again  and  went  forth 
to  gather  the  nations  to  battle.  These  points  must  be  ascertained  by  other 
calculations.  All  we  can  fairlj  gather  from  this  vision  is  the  general  conclu- 
sion that  more  than  a  thousand  years  intervene  between  the  first  and  second 
judgments. 

We  may  make  a  further  approximation  toward  exactness  in  this  calcula- 
tion, by  examining  the  account  of  the  second  judgment  with  its  antecedents, 
in  the  eleventh  chapter.  The  reader  will  observe  that  the  latter  part  of  this 
chapter  is  a  continuation  of  the  vision  of  the  trumpets,  which  commences  in 
the  seventh  chapter.  The  final  judgment  is  ushered  in  by  the  sounding  of 
the  seventh  trumpet.  It  is  evident  that  the  account  of  the  two  witnesses  in 
the  former  part  of  the  chapter  is  a  sort  of  episode  interposed  between  the 
sixth  and  seventh  trumpets,  for  the  sake  of  bringing  down  a  separate  train 
of  events,  to  the  point  of  junction  with  the  train  introduced  by  the  trumpets. 
The  earthquake  and  slaughter  following  the  resurrection  of  the  witnesses,  is 
coincident  with  the  events  of  the  second  woe  trumpet,  and  immediately  pre- 
cedes the  third  woe,  which  is  the  final  scene  of  wrath  and  recompense. — 
While  the  period  covered  by  this  episode  thus  manifestly  comes  down  nearly 
to  the  second  judment,  on  the  other  hand  it  certainly  reaches  back  to  the 
first  judgment.  The  two  witnesses  commence  their  testimony  when  the 
Gentiles  begin  to  '  tread  the  holy  city  under  foot,'  i.  e.  at  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  The  duration  of  their  testimony  is  stated  to  be  '  forty  and  two 
months,'  or  1260  days.  At  the  end  of  that  period  they  are  killed,  and  af- 
ter three  days  and  a  half  they  rise,  ascend  to  heaven,  and  then  follows  in 
quick  succession  the  destruction  of  their  enemies  and  the  final  judgment. 
So  that  the  '  forty  and  tAvo  months'  extend  from  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, to  the  neighborhood  of  the  second  judgment.  Now  we  know  by  our 
previous  calculations  that  more  than  a  thousand  years  intervene  between  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  second  judgment.  Since  therefore  the 
*  forty  and  two  months'  occupy  substantially  the  same  space*  with  the  thou- 
sand years,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  these  are  not  literal  but  sym- 
boUcal  months,  i.  e.,  that  the  days  in  them  stand  for  years. 

We  have  not  in.  this  case  the  same  reasons  for  adhering  to  the  literal  mean- 
ing, as  we  had  in  the  case  of  the  thousand  years.  The  persons  who  stand 
connected  with  the  period  specified  in  this  case  are  symbolical,  as  they  were 
not  in  the  other.  And  the  length  of  the  time  given  by  the  expansion  of  1260 
days  into  1260  years  is  more  reasonable  than  that  given  by  the  expansion  of 
1000  into  360,000  years.  It  is  in  vain  to  insist  that  symbolical  designations 
of  time  are  inadmissible.  The  latitude  of  the  Apocalypse  in  the  use  of  mys- 
tical representations  in  relation  to  other  subjects,  is  as  proper,  and  equally 
to  be  expected,  in  relation  to  time.  The  necessity  of  the  case,  as  above  ex- 
hibited, satisfies  us  that  the  Avriter  of  the  Apocalypse  put  days  for  years  in 
this  instance,  and  in  several  others,  and  that  he  left  the  designation  of  time 
in  the  twentieth  chapter  in  literal  language  for  the  very  purpose  of  giving  a 
clue  to  the  meaning  of  those  which  are  symbolical. 

In  the  place  then  of  a  thousand  years  with  an  indefinite  margin  of  time  before 
and  after  it,  which  was  the  result  of  our  former  calculation,  we  have  now  1260 


SCOPE   OF  THE   APOCALYPSE.  829 

years,  commencing  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  extending  to  the 
neighl3orhood  of  the  second  judgment.  An  indefinite  margin  is  still  left  be- 
tween the  end  of  this  period  and  the  final  scene.  All  we  can  fairly  say,  is, 
that  at  the  end  of  1260  years  from  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  i.  e.  about 
A.  D.  1330,  the  dispensation  of  the  two  witnesses  (who  commenced  their 
testimony  among  the  Gentiles  after  the  termination  of  Judaism)  came  to  an 
end,  and  a  new  series  of  events  directly  preparatory  to  the  final  judgment, 
commenced.  How  long  a  period  these  preparatory  movements  are  to  occupy, 
we  have  thus  far  no  means  of  determining.  We  only  know  that  the  final 
judgment  has  not  taken  place  yet,  and  that  we  are  living  at  a  late  period  in 
the  preparatory  era  which  immediately  precedes  it. 

If  external  historical  tokens  of  the  truth  of  our  conclusions  are  demanded, 
we  may  mention  that  Popery  came  to  its  height  and  began  to  decline  soon 
after  the  commencement  of  the  14th  century ;  that  Wiclif,  the  acknowl- 
edged father  of  the  Reformation,  was  born  in  1324,  and  that  during  his  life 
of  60  years  the  Bible  was  first  translated,  and  the  seeds  of  the  rehgious  rev- 
olutions which  have  since  changed  the  face  of  all  Christendom,  were  sown. 
It  is  true  (whether  it  has  any  thing  to  do  with  our  prophecy  or  not)  that  the 
dispensation  of  the  Reformation  properly  dates  from  the  period  between 
A.  D.  1330  and  1400.  Since  that  time  the  religious  world  has  been  in  a 
state  of  transition.  We  believe  that  it  will  prove  to  be  a  transition  from  the 
Gentile  dispensation  of  legality,  to  the  final  judgment. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  as  we  find  the  main  fulfilment  of 
the  prophecies  of  the  second  coming,  in  the  spiritual  world,  so  we  must  look 
for  the  principal  events  foreshadowed  in  the  Apocalypse,  beyond  the  vail. 
Let  carnal  unbelief  pervert  predictions  in  order  to  make  them  match  external 
events,  or  reject  them  because  their  fulfilment  is  not  to  be  seen.  We  have 
learned,  by  the  lesson  of  the  second  coming,  to  allow  prophecy  a  wider  field 
of  fulfilment  than  this  world. 

41 


^47.   THE  DISPENSATION  OE  THE  FULNESS  OF  TIMES- 

"He  hath  abounded  toward  us  in  all  wisdom  and  prudence;  havir>g  made 
known  unto  us  the  mystery  of  his  will,  according  to  his  good  pleasure  which  he 
hath  purposed  in  himself  i  that  in  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times,  he 
might  gather  together  in  one  all  things  in  Christ,  both  which  are  in  heaven  and 
"Which  are  on  earth;  even  in  him  :  in  whom  we  also  have  obtained  an  inheri- 
tance, being  predestinated  according  to  the  purpose  of  hhn  who  worketh  all 
things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will  ;  that  we  should  be  to  the  praise  of  his 
glory,  who  first  trusted  in  Christ."  Bph.  1:  8—12. 

It  is  evident  that  Paul  refers,  in  the  above  passage,  to  a  dispensation  of 
the  grace  of  Christ  which  was  ih^n  future^  from  the  following  circumstances. 
1.  There  w^as  not  in  the  dispensation  committed  to  him,  i.  e.,  in  the  first  and 
then  present  dispensation  of  the  grace  of  Christ,  any  such  imiversal  gather- 
ing as  he  describes  in  these  words,  '  that  he  might  gather  &c.  all  things,  both 
\vhich  are  in  heaven  and  which  are  on  earth.''  When  Paul  says  in  Heb.  2: 
8—'  In  that  he  hath  put  all  in  subjection  under  him  [Christ,]  he  left  noth- 
ing that  is  not  put  under  him'-— he  speaks  manifestly  of  the  same  purpose  of 
God,  as  that  referred  to  in  the  preceding  passage,  and  immediately  adds, 
*  but  now  tve  see  not  yet  all  things  put  under  him.*  As  he  plainly  predicts 
the  full  subjection  of  this  world  to  Christ,  and  as  plainly  connects  it  with  '  the 
dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times,'  we  conclude  with  certainty  that  he  had 
in  his  mind  in  using  this  expression,  a  dispensation  which  was  not  only  then, 
but  is  now  future.  2.  His  language  concerning  believers  at  that  time,  is 
obviously  designed  to  distinguish  them  from  those  who  should  be  gathered  in 
the  '  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times.'  In  whom  tve  also  have  obtained 
an  inheritance,  &c.,  that  we  should  be  to  the  praise  of  his  glory,  ^Yho  first 
trusted  in  Christ.*  The  intimation  here  contained,  that  a  special  glory  be- 
longs to  the  subjects  of  the  first  dispensation,  implies  the  expectation  of  a 
second  future  gathering.  Similar  intimations,  tending  in  like  mamier  to  set 
a  distinction  between  the  primitive  church  and  the  subjects  of  the  last  dispen- 
sation, may  be  found  in  Rev.  14:  4,  and  20:  6.  3.  The  single  expression, 
fulness  of  times,''  will  be  found  by  comparing  scripture  with  scripture,  to 
contain  evidence  that  Paul  spoke  of  a  dispensation  distinct  from  that  of  the 
primitive  church,  wdiich  is  yet  to  come.  Christ  says  in  Luke  21:  24- — '  Je- 
rusalem shall  be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  till  the  times  of  the  Gentiles 
he  fulfilled.^  The  w^ords  'fulness'  and  '  fulfilled'  in  these  passages,  are  more 
nearly  identical  in  the  original,  than  in  our  version.  Using  a  noun  instead 
of  a  verb,  Christ  would  have  said,  '  Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  down  of  the 
Gentiles,  till  the  fulness  of  the  Gentile  times.*  The  two  expressions  then 
differ  only  in  that  one  of  them  is  general  and  the  other  particular.  Paul 
speaks  of  the  fulness  or  completion  of  all  the  times  marked  out  in  the  pur- 
poses and  predictions  of  God  ;  Christ  of  the  completion  of  the  times  appoin- 
ted for  the  Gentiles.  Now  as  that  which  is  general  must  include  that  which 
is  particular,  it  is  evident  that  '  the  fulness  of  times'  cannot  come  till  '  the 
times  of  the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled  j'  and  as  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  are  not 


DISPENSATION    OF  TUE   FULNESS   OF  TLMES.  881 

fulfilled,  it  follows  that '  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times'  has  not  yet 
come. 

The  words  of  the  angel,  (Rev.  10:  5 — 7,)  well  define  the  meaning  of 
Paul's  expression— -'And  the  angel  which  I  saw  stand  upon  the  sea  and  upon 
the  earth  lifted  up  his  hand  to  heaven,  and  sware  by  him  that  liveth  for  ever 
and  ev^er,  who  created  heaven  and  earth,  and  the  things  that  therein  are,  and 
the  sea,  and  the  things  which  are  therein,  that  there  shall  be  time  no  longer ; 
but  in  the  days  of  the  voice  of  the  seventh  angel,  when  he  shall  begin  to 
sound,  the  mystery  of  God  should  be  finished,  as  he  hath  declared  to  his  ser- 
vants the  prophets.'  In  this  passage  we  find  that  the  fulness  of  times  is  the 
period  when  the  '  mystery  of  God  should  be  finished,  as  he  hath  declared  to 
his  servants  the  prophets.'  Now  as  the  gathering  of  all  things  in  heaven 
and  earth  into  Christ,  was  declared  to  the  prophets  to  be  the  final  purpose 
of  God,  it  is  evident  that  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times  in  which 
this  was  to  be  accomplished,  is  the  very  same  as  the  finishing  of  the  mystery 
of  God.  When  the  angel  swears  that  '  time  shall  be  no  longer,'  he  declares 
that  '  the  fulness  of  times'  is  come  ;  and  immediately  connects  with  this  era 
that  consummation  of  God's  purposes  which  Paul  describes,  appointing  its 
fulfilment  at  the  beginning  of  the  voice  of  the  seventh  angel.  From  all  this 
we  ascertain,  1,  That  the  manifestation  of  Christ  to  mankind,  is  divided  into 
two  parts,  separated  from  each  other  by  a  long  interval  of  time,  and  called, 
the  dispensation  of  the  primitive  church,  and  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness 
of  times.  2.  That  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times,  is  the  appointed 
period  of  Christ's  final  and  complete  triumph  over  this  world,  the  consum- 
mation of  prophecy,  the  denoueymnt  of  the  drama  commenced  at  the  crea- 
tion. 3.  That  it  is  subsequent  to  the  times  of  the  Gentiles.  4.  That  it  is 
to  come  when  the  seventh  angel  shall  begin  to  sound.  All  of  these  particu- 
lars which  we  have  thus  gathered  from  scattered  evidences,  are  presented, 
in  a  summary  and  consecutive  form,  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Reveiatk)ns, 
John  was  commanded  to  measure  the  temple  ;  '  but,'  said  the  angel,  ^  the 
court  which  is  without  the  temple  leave  out,  and  measure  it  not ;  for  it  i$ 
given  unto  the  Gentiles :  and  the  holy  city  shall  they  tread  under  foot  forty 
and  two  months.'  During  this  period,  the  two  witnesses  prophesy^  Their 
death,  resurrection,  ascension,  the  defeat  and  conversion  of  their  enemies, 
follow.  Then  comes  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times.  ^  The  seventh 
angel  sounded  ;  and  there  were  great  voices  in  heaven,  saying.  The  king- 
doms of  this  world  are  become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord,  and  of  his  Christ ; 
and  he  shall  reign  forever  and  ever.  And  the  four  and  twenty  elders  which  sat 
before  God  on  their  seats,  fell  upon  their  faces,  and  worshiped  God,  saying, 
We  give  thee  thanks,  0  Lord  God  Almighty,  which  art,  and  wast,  and  art 
to  come  ;  because  thou  hast  taken  to  thee  thy  great  power,  and  hast  reigned. 
And  the  nations  were  angry,  and  thy  wrath  is  come,  and  the  time  of  the 
dead,  that  they  should  be  judged,  and  that  thou  shouldst  give  reward  unto 
thy  servants  the  prophets,  and  to  the  saints,  and  them  that  fear  thy  name, 
small  and  great ;  and  shouldst  destroy  them  which  destroy  the  earth/'  Rev, 
11:  15 — 18.  If  the  temple  of  God  is  the  church,  which  Paul  declares, 
(1  Tim.  3:  15,)  we  are  here  informed  that  the  inner  portion  of  the  churei 


882  DISPENSATION   OF  THE  FULNESS   OF  TIMES. 

was  complete,  previous  to  the  forty-two  months  of  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  ; 

that  ths  outer  portion  of  it  remained  unfinished  during  that  period  ;  and  that 
after  that  period  the  seventh  angel  sounds,  ushering  in  the  subjection  of 
t/iis  world  to  Christ,  the  final  fulfilment  of  prophecy — in  other  words,  the 
dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times,  in  which  '  all  things,  both  which  are  in 
heaven  and  which  are  on  earth,''  the  outer  as  well  as  the  inner  court  of  the 
temple,  are  subjected  to  Christ.  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  we  have 
identified  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times,  with  the  finishing  of  the 
mystery  of  God — that  the  finishing  of  the  mystery  of  God  comes  in  connec- 
tion with  the  voice  of  the  seventh  angel — and  that  the  voice  of  the  seventh 
angel,  according  to  Rev.  11:  18,  mtrodnces  tho  final  judgment.  We  take 
then  for  our  land-mark  in  pursuing  our  investigations  of  prophecy,  the  fol- 
lowing proposition  : — The  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times,  in  luhichthis 
world  is  to  he  subjected  to  Christ,  is  the  day  of  final  judgment.  By  this 
guide-board  we  are  directed  at  once  to  that  most  notable  description  of  the 
day  of  judgment  in  Rev.  20:  11,  &c.,  and  by  a  glance  at  the  context  which 
precedes  it,  we  are  assured  that  the  direction  is  correct.  That  context, 
(ver.  4,  &c.,)  describes  a  primary  judgment,  separated  from  the  final  one 
by  an  interval  of  a  thousand  years  and  more  ;  it  marks  the  peculiar  glory 
of  the  subjects  of  this  first  dispensation,  and  describes  the  introductory  con- 
flict of  God  with  the  nations,  previous  to  the  universal  subjection  of  mankind 
to  Christ,  which  is  then  described.  Comparing  these  things  with  those  we 
have  before  seen,  we  find  an  accumulating  confirmation  of  the  theory  sug- 
gested by  the  passage  at  the  head  of  this  article.  The  partakers  of  the  first 
resurrection,  are  evidently  they  '  who  first  trusted  in  Christ,'  of  whom  Paul 
speaks,  coupling  himself  with  them,  viz.  the  primitive,  or  as  it  may  be  called, 
the  Jewish  church ;  and  whom  John's  vision  characterizes  as  the  inner  por- 
tion of  the  temple — first  finished.  Between  the  first  and  second  resurrec- 
tion, a  period  of  more  than  a  thousand  years  is  introduced,  corresponding 
to  the  forty-two  months,  the  times  of  the  Gentiles.  After  this  a  throne  of 
universal  dominion  is  set — heaven  and  ea7'th  fleeing  before  it ;  which  also 
corresponds  to  the  gathering  '  of  all  things,  both  which  are  in  heaven  and 
which  are  on  earth,  into  Christ :  and  to  the  shout  which  follows  the  voice  of 
the  seventh  angel — '  The  kingdoms  of  this  world  are  become  the  kingdoms 
of  our  Lord,  and  of  his  Christ.' 

A  further  confirmation  of  the  same  theory,  should  be  noticed  in  Rev.  12. 
Whatever  we  understand  by  the  woman  of  this  vision,  whether  it  be  simply 
Judaism,  or  the  church  of  the  transition  period,  it  matters  not.  It  is  suffi- 
cient that  we  know  she  was  the  mother  of  '  the  child  that  was  to  rule  all  na- 
tions with  a  rod  of  iron.'  This  child  cannot  be  simply  the  man  Christ  Jesus, 
because,  in  that  case,  his  mother  would  have  been  simply  the  virgin  Mary. 
If  we  regard  the  mother  as  a  spiritual  corporation,  we  must  give  her  child 
the  same  character,  or  we  mingle  things  literal  and  spiritual  in  the  same 
vision.  As  the  promises  concerning  Christ  as  an  individual,  are  also  given 
to  Christ  as  a  corporation,  i.  e.  to  the  church,  (see  Rev.  2:  26,  &c.,)  we 
laay  safely  regard  '  the  child  that  was  to  rule  all  nations  with  a  rod  of  iron,' 
lis  the  primitive  church,  the  partakers  of  the  first  resurrection,  they  who '  first 


DISPENSATION   OF  THE  FULNESS   OF  TIMES.  833 

trusted  in  Christ,'  to  whom,  as  we  have  before  seen,  a  special  glory  is  given. 
Now  as  the  inner  part  of  the  temple  was  first  finished,  and  the  outer  part 
given  to  the  Gentiles  iov  forty-two  months,  so  the  '  child  that  was  to  rule  all 
nations,'  was  at  his  birth  caught  up  unto  God  and  his  throne,  and  his  mother 
fled  into  the  wilderness  for  forty-tivo  months.  The  times  of  the  testimony 
of  the  two  witnesses,  which  are  the  times  of  the  Gentiles,  intervening  between 
the  first  and  last  dispensations,  are  identical  with  the  times  of  the  woman's 
abode  in  the  wilderness.  That  which  precedes  these  times,  viz.,  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  woman's  child — the  finishing  of  the  inner  part  of  the  temple — the 
first  resurrection — are  therefore  likewise  identical.  The  woman's  persecu- 
tion by  the  serpent,  and  residence  in  the  wilderness,  clearly  correspond  to 
the  testimony  of  the  two  witnesses  among  the  Gentiles,  and  the  persecutions 
they  suffered.  As  they  cover  the  same  period,  they  are  evidently  only  va- 
ried symbols  of  the  same  things;  viz.,  the  continuation  of  divine  testimony 
in  this  world,  during  the  interval  between  the  first  and  last  dispensations. 

Lastly,  if  we  look  at  the  vision  of  the  seven  seals,  and  the  seven  trumpets, 
we  shall  find  unanswerable  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  foregoing  theory. 
When  the  sixth  seal  was  opened,  the  '  great  day  of  the  Avrath  of  the  Lamb' 
came,  and  with  it  the  sealing  of  the  Jewish  church.  An  attentive  compari- 
son of  the  description  of  these  events,  with  the  24th  of  Matthew,  will  make 
it  certain  that  they  came  to  pass  in  the  generation  cotemporary  with  Christ. 
When  the  seventh  seal  opens,  the  seven  trumpets  are  introduced.  A  descrip- 
tion of  a  great  variety  of  events,  accompanying  the  successive  sounding  of 
six  trumpets,  follows  ;  events  which  evidently  occupy  the  period  between  the 
first  and  second  judgment.  The  seventh  and  last  trumpet  ushers  in  the  day 
of  final  judgment — the  subjection  of  this  world  to  Christ — i.  e.  the  'dispen- 
sation of  the  fulness  of  times.' 

The  object  of  this  article  is  to  fix  the  attention  of  behevers  on  the  truth, 
that  the  Bible  describes  tivo  dispensations  of  Christ,  tico  resurrections,  tivo 
judgments,  one  of  which  is  past,  the  other  future.  These  two  dispensations, 
are  the  two  foci  of  all  prophecy,  and  should  stand  in  the  mind  as  central 
pomts  of  interest.  By  confounding  them  together,  men  have  fallen  into  error 
in  two  ways.  Behevers  of  the  common  doctrines  of  Christendom,  see  but  one 
focus  of  prophecy,  and  that  future.  Hence  the  prophecies  that  separately 
pertain  to  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  and  the  redemption  of  the  Jewish 
church,  are  to  them  incomprehensible  perplexities.  On  the  other  hand,  many 
Perfectionists  seem  to  see  nothing  but  the  second  coming,.  The  focus  of  all 
prophecy  with  them  is  i^ast.  Hence  arises  much  misinterpretation  of  scrip- 
ture, and  many  moral  and  intellectual  errors.  In  the  ninth  chapter  of  Ro- 
mans, Paul  suggests  the  comprehensive  idea  of  God's  dispensations,  which 
should  ahvays  be  borne  in  mind.  Speaking  to  the  Gentiles,  he  says,  '  I  would 
not,  brethren,  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  of  this  mystery,  iest  ye  should  be 
/wise  in  your  own  conceits,  that  blindness  in  part  is  happened  to  Israel,  until 
the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in  :'  and  again,  '  As  ye  in  times  past  have 
not  believed  God,  yet  have  now  obtained  mercy  through  their  unbelief;  even 
so  have  these  also  now  not  believed,  that  through  your  mercy  they  also  may 
obtam  mercy.'     Comparing  these  things  with  the  foregoing  discussion,  we 


334 


THE    MILLENNIUM. 


perceive  that  the  two  dispensations  which  we  have  considered,  correspond  to 
the  two  grand  divisions  of  the  human  race,  viz.  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The 
gospel  of  Christ  is  given  '  to  the  Jew  first^  and  also  to  the  Gentile.'  Rom. 
2:  10.  As  the  Jews  had  an  introductory,  carnal  dispensation,  from  Moses 
to  Christ,  which  terminated  in  the  revelation  of  the  gospel,  and  the  first  res- 
urrection and  judgment ;  so  the  Gentiles  have  had  a  similar  carnal  dispensar 
tion  from  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  to  the  present  time  ;  and  when  their 
^  times  are  fulfilled,'  their  dispensation  will  likewise  terminate  in  a  second 
revelation  of  the  gospel — a  second  resurrection  and  judgment.  As  the  first 
redeemed  church  was  chiefly  Jewish,  (the  apostles  and  prophets,  its  founda- 
tions, and  Jesus  Christ  its  chief  corner-stone,  being  Jews,)  so  Paul  intimates 
that  the  second  redeemed  church  will  be  chiefly  Gentile — that  the  Jews  may 
obtain  mercy  through  the  Gentiles,  as  the  Gentiles  have  obtained  mercy 
through  the  Jews. 


§  48.    THE  MILLENNIUM. 

Paul  divides  the  resurrection  of  the  human  race  into  three  distinct  acts. 
^As  in  Adam,'  says  he,  '  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.* 
But  every  man  in  his  own  order :  Christ  the  first-fruits  ;  afterward  they 
that  are  Chrises  at  his  coming.  Then  cometh  the  end,  [or  finishing  of  the 
resurrection,]  when  he  shall  have  dehvered  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even 
the  Father  ;  when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule  and  all  authority  and  power. 
Eor  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet.  The  last  en- 
emy that  shall  be  destroyed  is  death.'  1  Cor.  15:  22 — 26.  Paul  manifestly 
intended  to  separate  the  resurrection  w^hich  was  to  take  place  at  Christ's 
coming,  from  the  final  resurrection.  This  distinction — though  generally  over- 
looked— we  shall  see  is  imperatively  required  by  other  passages. f      With 

*  It  is  manifest  from  the  vvliole  tenor  of  the  chapter  of  which  this  is  a  part,  that  Paul 
is  speaking  simply  of  a.  physical  resurrection,  not  of  salvation  from  spiritual  death.  He 
*!imply  affirms  that  all  will  be  raised.  Other  passag-es  inform  us  that  some  will  'come 
forth  to  the  resurrection  of  life,  and  some  to  the  resurrection  of  damnation.' 

tProf.  Stuart,  in  his  late  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse,  distinguishes  between  the 
resurrection  '  at  Christ's  coming-,'  and  '  the  end'  or  final  resurrection,  just  as  we  have 
done.  This  view  leads  inevitably  to  the  conclusion  that  the  second  coming  takes  place 
Jong  before  liic  final  judgment,  i.  e.  at  the  iirst  resurrection,  before  the  Millennium. — 
He  lias  thus  opened  a  breach  in  the  walls  of  the  old  doctrine  that  the  resurrection  and 
judgment  of  mankind  is  to  be  a  single  transaction  at  the  end  of  the  world.  His  position 
is  the  same  as  ours  on  the  following  points,  viz  :  that  two  resurrections  and  two  judg- 
ments are  predicted  in  scripture;  thai  the  two  resurrections  are  alike  in  nature,  i.  e. 
honajide  resurrections  in  the  spiritual  body;  that  they  differ  only  in  that  the  first  precedes 
Ihe  second  as  to  time,  and  is  confined  to  a  small  part  of  the  human  race  instead  of  being 
universal.  It  is  true  that  he  entirely  mis-Locates  the  first  resurrection,  if  our  theory  is 
correct:  for  he  regards  it  as  yet  future,  instead  of  dating  it  from  the  time  pointed  out  by 
ihe  predictions  of  Christ  and  the  expectations  of  the  apostles,  viz.,  the  end  of  the  Mo- 
saic age.  He  adheres  to  the  old  theory  of  a  future  millennium,  or  thousand  years  of 
*  latter  day  glory,'  and  supposes  that  the  martyr  church  of  the  early  days  of  Christianity 


THE   MILLENNIUM.  835 

reference  to  the  resurrection  of  the  whole  race,  Christ  is  called  the  '  first- 
fruits, '^  {aparche,  in  the  Greek.]  But  with  reference  to  the  final  resurrec- 
tion, the  primitive  church,  or  '  they  that  are  Christ's'  and  were  raised  at  his 
coming,  are  called  the  'first-fruits'  \_aparclie\  in  Revelations  14:  4.*  They 
are  also  obviously  referred  to  and  spoken  of  in  similar  terms  in  Rev.  20:  4 — 
6.  The  '  first  resurrection'  is  the  resurrection  of  the  '  first-fruits.'  This 
last  passage  reveals  to  us  a  very  wide  separation  between  the  second  and 
third  acts  of  Paul's  three-fold  resurrection.  More  than  a  thousand  years 
intervene  between  the  rising  of  them  that  are  Christ's,'  and  the  final,  univer- 
sal resurrection,  when  death  and  hell  are  destroyed.  (See  verses  7, 12, 14.) 
The  mark  of  the  final  resurrection,  according  to  1  Cor.  15:  24,  is  the  put- 
ting all  things  under  Christ.  '  The  Father  hath  committed  all  judgment  to 
the  Son  ;' — and  so  long  as  the  judgment  of  the  world  is  unfinished,  the  inter- 
mediate regency  of  the  Son  must  continue.  But  all  things  were  not  put 
under  Christ  at  the  second  coming.  The  judgment  of  the  world  was  not 
finished.  Death,  the  last  enemy,  was  not  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  We 
know  there  is  a  sense,  and  a  very  important  one,  too,  in  which  Christ  tri- 
umphed over  all  enemies  and  death  was  swallowed  up  in  victory,  at  the 
second  coming.  The  saints  that  lived  till  that  event  did  not  sleep,  but  were 
changed  ;  and  so  the  promise  of  victory  over  death  was  fulfilled  in  regard  to 
a  Hmited  number.  But  in  a  similar  sense,  it  is  true  that  the  last  enemy  was 
conquered  when  Christ  himself  arose  ;  and  he  expressly  said  at  that  time, 
*A11  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  is  given  unto  me.'  The  truth  is,  in  both 
of  these  events— viz.,  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  his  second  coming — the 
great  last  victory  over  the  powers  of  death  and  hell,  was  achieved  in  the  seed, 
if  we  may  use  the  expression.  Christ's  resurrection  was  the  seed  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  second  coming,  and  that  was  the  seed  of  the  final  resur- 
rection. But  Paul's  description  of  the  *  putting  down  of  all  rule  and  all 
authorifcy  and  power,'  certainly  does  not  refer  to  any  seminal  victory.  No- 
thing less  than  an  actual  subjugation  of  all  visible  as  well  as  invisible  thrones 
and  dominions,  can  answer  to  his  language.  And  the  destruction  of  death, 
which  he  had  in  his  mind,  was  not  that  which  was  effected  by  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  nor  that  which  took  place  when  the  primitive  saints  were^ 
translated  ;  but  that  which  is  to  come,  after  the  thousand  years  of  the  first 
resurrection,  and  after  the  battle  of  the  great  day  of  God  Almighty,  when 
all  the  dead  both  small  and  great  shall  be  raised,  and  death  shall  be  finally 
and  utterly  destroyed  in  the  lake  of  fire.  Then  the  concerns  of  the  world  in 
its  probationary  state— over  which  the  Son  presides — will  be  brought  to  an 
end,  and  the  kingdom  will  be  delivered  up  to  the  Father.     The  vision  which 

will  be  raised  at  the  beg-inning-  of  that  period.  This  displacement  is  at  variance  not  only 
with  the  natui'al  probabilities  of  the  case,  (for  why  should  the  martyrs  lay  under  the 
altar  so  long?)  but  with  his  own  oft-repeated  canon  that  the  obvious  design  of  the  Apoc- 
alypse, viz.  the  encourag-ement  of  the  believers  of  the  apostle's  own  time,  should  enter 
into  all  our  views  of  the  book,  and  that  we  should  therefore  look  for  immediate  rather 
than  remote  fulfilments  of  its  predictions.  But  it  is  not  our  de.'iig'n  at  present  to  argue 
the  matter.  Selling-  aside  the  difierence  as  to  time,  Stuart's  doctrine  agrees  with  ours 
in  all  important  respects,  far  more  nearly  than  we  expected. 

*  The  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand  mentioned  in  this  passage,   may  be  certainly 
identified  with  those  who  were  raised  at  Christ's  coming,  by  comparing  Rev.  6  and  7. 


836  THE   MILLENNIUM. 

immediately  succeeds  the  description  of  the  final  judgment  in  Rev.  20,  is  that 
of '  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth  ;'  and  a  great  voice  out  of  heaven 
proclaims,  'Behold  the  tahernacle  of  God  is  with  men,  and  he  will  dwell 
with  them,  and  they  shall  be  his  peo^jle,  and  Gob  himself  shall  be  ivith  them, 
and  be  their  G-od.''     Is  not  this  the  kingdom  of  the  Father  ? 

The  same  distinction  which  Ave  have  made  between  the  resurrection  at 
Christ's  coming,  and  the  '  end'  described  in  1  Cor.  15:  24,  should  also  be 
made  between  the  judgment  described  in  the  24th  of  Matthew,  and  that  m 
the  latter  part  of  the  25th.  The  gathering  of  the  elect  mentioned  in  the 
24th,  was  to  take  place  within  the  period  of  the  then  living  generation.  This 
is  manifestly  the  resurrection  of  '  them  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming,' 
spoken  of  in  1  Cor.  15:  23 — the  sealing  of  the  hundred  and  forty-four  thou- 
siand  spoken  of  in  Rev.  6 — the  gathering  of  the  '  first-fruits'  spoken  of  in  Rev. 
14 — and  the  '  first  resurrection'  spoken  of  in  Rev  20.  But  in  Matthew  25: 
31,  32,  we  have  a  description  of  events  subsequent  to  the  second  coming — 
nay,  of  events  that  have  not  yet  taken  place, — such  as  the  gathering  of  all 
nations  before  Christ.  '  When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory  and 
all  the  holy  angels  tuith  him,  [this  is  the  second  advent,  which  took  place  in 
that  generation,  and  ushered  in  the  first  resurrection,]  then  shall  he  sit  upon 
the  throne  of  his  glory :  [this  is  the  subsequent  regency  of  the  Son,  continued 
till  all  enemies  are  put  under  his  feet— occupying  the  period  between  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  present  time  :]  and  before  him  shall  be 
gathered  all  nations/  ^'C.  [This  is  the  assembhng  of  the  dead  small  and 
great  before  the  great  white  throne,  the  second  and  final  judgment.]  In  this 
case,  as  in  that  of  1  Cor.  15:  24,  the  long  interval  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Son, 
between  the  second  advent  and  the  final  judgment,  when  the  kingdom  is  to 
be  delivered  up  to  the  Father,  has  been  generally  overlooked,  and  thus  two 
widely  separate  judgments  have  been  confounded.  The  consequence  has  been 
that  the  second  coming  has  been  thrown  forward  by  one  party  into  the  future, 
in  defiance  of  the  plainest  testimony  of  scripture, — and  the  final  judgment  has 
been  thrown  back  by  another  party  into  the  past,  in  defiance  of  all  the  in-, 
stincts  of  morality  and  common  sense. 

Our  theory  then  is,  that  the  judgment  and  resurrection  of  mankind  took 
place  in  the  seed,  when  Christ  died  and  rose  ;  that  this  seed  brought  forth 
its  first  harvest  in  the  resurrection  of  the  Jewish  church,  and  in  the  judgment 
of  antichrist  at  the  period  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem ;  that  it  will  bring 
forth  its  second  and  final  harvest,  in  the  resurrection  of  the  whole  human 
race,  and  in  the  destruction  of  death  and  hell,  with  all  who  adhere  to  them, 
' — at  the  end  of  the  regency  of  the  Son,  when  the  kingdoms  of  this  world 
shall  be  fully  put  under  him.  According  to  this  theory,  the  second  advent  is 
past ;  the  first  resurrection  is  past ;  the  Millennium  is  past ;  and  the  things 
that  are  to  come  are  the  final  resurrection  and  judgment.  The  principal  ob- 
jection to  this  view  is,  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  with  it  the  prediction  of 
the  binding  of  Satan,  during  the  Millennium.  We  will  now  proceed  to  an 
examination  of  this  subject. 

The  20th  chapter  of  Revelations,  in  which  the  binding  of  Satan,  the  Mil- 
lennium, the  battle  of  the  great  day,  and  the  final  resurrection  and  judgment, 


THE    MILLENNIUM.  88T 

are  described,  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  a  continuation  of  tlie  vision  of  the 
preceding  chapter,  which  closes  with  a  great  battle,  in  which  the  beast  and 
false  prophet  are  taken  and  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  If  this  supposition 
were  correct,  it  would  place  the  events  of  the  20th  chapter  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  beast  and  false  prophet,  and  we  should  be  obliged  to  conclude 
(since  the  beast  and  the  false  prophet  certainly  are  not  yet  destroyed)  that 
the  binding  of  Satan,  and  the  Millenium,  are  yet  future.  But  it  is  well 
known  that  the  book  of  Revelations  is  not  a  single  continuous  vision,  repre- 
senting a  consecutive  series  of  transactions ;  but  a  collection  of  visions,  in 
which  distinct  trains  of  events  that  occupy  the  same  period  of  time,  and  fre- 
quently the  same  events  under  different  aspects,  are  presented  to  view  as  it 
were  in  pictures,  which  should  be  placed  side  by  side.  For  example,  in  the 
11th  chapter  it  is  said  that  '  the  beast  that  ascendeth  out  of  the  bottomless  pit, 
shall  make  war  upon  the  two  witnesses,  and  kill  them.  Verse  7.  On  ex- 
amining the  preceding  chapters  we  find  nothing  said  of  any  such  beast,  though 
he  is  introduced  here  as  if  he  w^ere  already  known  to  the  reader.  But  in 
the  17th  chapter  this  beast  is  brought  to  view,  (verse  8,)  and  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  identify  him  with  the  beast  described  in  the  13th  chapter ;  and 
there  we  find  him  making  war  with  the  saints  and  overcoming  them,  (ver.  7,) 
as  he  is  represented  in  the  11th  chapter.  Thus  the  attentive  reader  will  per- 
ceive that  the  same  beast  is  introduced  three  times,  and  in  such  a  way  as 
makes  it  necessary  that  we  should  set  the  three  visions,  not  in  a  consecutive 
order,  but  side  by  side,  and  explain  one  by  the  other.  Again,  in  the  16th 
chapter,  (ver.  19,)  a  summary  view  of  the  destruction  of  Babylon  is  intro- 
duced, among  other  events  ;  and  then  in  the  17th  and  18th  chapters  we  have 
a  distinct  vision  devoted  to  the  entire  history  of  Babylon  from  the  period  when 
she  sat  upon  the  ten-horned  beast  in  the  glory  of  her  power,  till  her  awful 
overthrow.  In  this  ca-e,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  writer  of  the  Apocar 
lypse,  after  carrying  the  history  of  a  general  train  of  events  down  to  a  cer- 
tain point,  goes  back  and  takes  up  a  particular  thread  of  the  same  history, 
and  traces  it  over  the  same  period  again.  The  principle  of  interpretation 
which  is  thus  ascertained,  must  be  applied  to  the  19th  and  20th  chapters. 
The  visions  which  they  contain  are  not  consecutive,  but  collateral.  To  prove 
this,  it  is  only  necessary  to  recur  to  a  single  circumstance.  If  the  beast  and 
the  false  prophet  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  before  the  binding  of  Satan, 
and  the  Millennium,  they  could  have  no  agency  in  the  gathering  of  the  na- 
tions to  the  battle  of  the  great  day,  which  takes  place  after  those  events. 
But  they  certainly  have  a  joint  agency  Avith  the  dragon  in  that  gathering  ; 
for  in  the  16th  chapter  (ver.  13,  14)  it  is  written — '  I  saw  three  unclean 
spirits  like  frogs,  come  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  dragon,  and  out  of  the  mouth 
of  the  beast,  and  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  false  prophet.  For  they  are  the 
spirits  of  devils,  working  miracles,  which  go  forth  unto  the  kings  of  the  earth, 
and  ot  the  whole  world,  to  gather  them  to  the  battle  of  that  great  day  of  God 
Almighty.'*  The  beast  and  the  false  prophet,  then,  are  to  be  still  oi\  the 
stage  when  Satan  is  loosed  and  goes  forth  to  gather  Gog  and  Magog.  We 
must  therefore  regard  the  19th  chapter  as  a  separate  history  of  the  beast  and 
false  prophet  down  to  the  period  of  their  destruction ;  and  the  20th,  as  a  col- 
42 


838  THE   MILLENNItM* 

lateral  special  history  of  the  dragon  down  to  the  same  period.  Both  histories 
terminate  in  the  same  great  overthrow  of  the  powers  of  hell ;  only  the  beast 
and  the  false  prophet  are  first  taken,  and  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire,  and  the 
di-agon  afterward. 

It  seems  to  be  generally  assumed  that  the  dragon  is  the  great  and  exclu' 
give  representative  of  all  evil,  and  of  course,  that,  during  the  period  when  he 
was  bound,  (i.  e.  the  Millennium,)  righteousness  and  peace  must  have  reigned 
supreme.  But  this  assumption  leaves  the  beast  and  false  prophet  out  of  view  .^ 
We  must  remember  that  there  are  three  great  evil  powers  in  the  drama  of 
the  Apocalypse  ;  and  that  while  one  of  them  was  bound,  the  other  two  may 
have  had  possession  of  the  nations.  Holiness  and  happiness,  during  the  Mil- 
lennium,'is  attributed  in  Revelations  20:  4-^^-6,  only  to  the  martyrs  of  Jesus, 
not  to  the  nations  of  the  world.  '  The  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not  again  until 
the  thousand  years  were  finished  ;'  so  that  death,  with  its  train  of  evils,  was 
not  destroyed  in  reference  to  mankind  generally.  In  the  12th  and  13th 
chapters  we  have  an  account  which  fully  authorizes  the  supposition  that  at  the 
time  the  dragon  was  bound,  the  beast  took  his  place.  The  great  dragon  in- 
troduced in  chap.  12  :  8,  is  clearly  the  same  as  the  dragon  of  the  20th  chap- 
ter, for  he  is  characterized  by  the  same  names,  viz.,  '  the  old  serpent,  which 
is  the  Devil,  and  Satan.'  Yer.  9.  After  the  account  of  his  expulsion  from 
heaven,  he  is  represented  as  wasting  the  earth  in  great  wrath,  '  because  he 
Jcnoweth  that  he  hath  hit  a  short  time,^  Yer.  9—17.  The  reason  why  he  knew 
he  had  but  a  short  time,  evidently  was,  that  he  foresaw  that  the  victory  which 
had  been  gained  over  him  in  heaven,  would  be  followed  up,  and  the  angel  of 
the  key  and  chain  would  be  sent  after  him  to  cast  him  out  of  the  earth  into 
the  bottomless  pit.  Accordingly,  immediately  following  his  persecution  of 
the  woman  and  her  seed,  we  have  an  account  of  the  rise  of  the  beast;  (chap. 
13:  1 ;)  and  we  are  expressly  told  that  '  the  dragon  gave  him  his  potver 
and  his  seat  and  great  authority,'^  Yer.  2.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the 
dragon  would  give  up  his  power  and  seat^  if  he  could  retain  them.  But  what 
happened  to  him  at  this  time,  that  he  should  be  obliged  to  make  over  his  pos- 
sessions to  a  successor  ?  We  have  no  account  of  his  temporary  dethrone- 
ment in  the  13th  chapter,  nor  any  where  else  previous  to  the  20th  ;  and  we 
therefore  regard  the  account  in  the  20th,  of  his  being  bound  and  cast  into 
the  bottomless  pit,  as  a  specific  statement  of  the  transaction  which  compelled 
him  to  give  up  his  power  and  seat  to  the  beast.  This  accords  with  the  fact 
that  he  knew  he  had  '  but  a  short  time.'  The  interval  between  his  ejection 
from  heaven,  and  the  rise  of  the  beast,  was  short ;  and  during  the  reign  of 
the  beast  he  was  confined  in  the  bottomless  pit.  The  Millennium,  then,  was 
the  period  of  the  supremacy  of  the  beast ;  and  instead  of  being  a  day  of  glory 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  was  a  period  of  blasphemy,  war,  and  bondage. 
(See  chap.  13:  5—8.)  ^ 

But  what  was  that  evil  power  which  was  restrained  during  the  reign  of  the 
beast  ?  In  order  to  answer  this  question,  we  must  ascertain  the  distinctive 
character  of  the  dragon. 

The  primary  duty  of  all  creatures  is  to  worship  God.  Hence  it  is  the  pri- 
IJiary  object  of  the  '  old  serpent  which  is  the  Devil,  and  Satan,'  in  his  native 


THE    MILLENNIUM.  QS^ 

eliaraeter,  as  the  uncreated  rival  and  antagonist  of  God,  to  draw  men  away 
to  the  worship  of  himself.  Idolatry  is  virtually  the  worship  of  the  devil, — 
and  is  therefore  the  form  of  sin  over  which  he  specially  presides.  As  the 
patron  of  idolatry,  it  may  truly  be  said  in  respect  to  the  ages  before  Christi- 
anity, that  he  '  deceived  the  whole  world.'  Not  only  the  Gentiles,  but  even 
Israel,  God's  peculiar  people,  for  ages  gave  themselves  up  to  the  worship  of 
idols  with  unaccountable  fatuity.  It  was  to  the  subversion  of  this  first-born 
sin  that  God  directed  all  his  efforts,  in  his  dealings  with  his  people,  until  the 
Babylonish  captivity, — when  he  succeeded,  at  least  externally,  in  regard  to 
them.  Thenceforward  his  object  was  to  carry  the  victory  which  he  had  gained 
in  a  single  nation,  into  the  heart  of  the  whole  world.  This  we  shall  see  he 
accomplished  Avhen  Christianity  triumphed  over  Eome. 

To  show  more  fully  that  the  devil,  in  his  distinctive  character  as  a  rival  of 
God,  is  an  aspirant  after  divine  worship,  we  may  cite  the  last  temptation 
which  he  offered  to  Christ.  '  All  these  [Idngdoms  of  the  world]  will  I  give 
thee  if  thou  tvilt  fall  down  and  worsJiip  we.'  Mat.  4:  7.  And  again,  the 
man  of  sin, '  whose  coming  was  after  the  working  of  Satan'— who  was,  in  fact, 
the  incarnation  of  Satan  himself, — is  represented  as  '  exalting  himself  above 
all  that  is  called  God,  or  that  is  worshipped ;  so  that  he,  as  Qod^  sitteth  in 
the  temple  of  Crod,  showing  himself  that  he  is  Cfod.*    2  Thess.  2:  4. 

Regarding  the  devil,  then,  in  distinction  from  the  beast  and  the  false 
prophet,  as  the  reijresentative  of  idolatry^  let  us  trace  his  history  in  the 
Apocalypse.  He  is  first  introduced,  as  a  great  red  dragon  in  heaven,  stand- 
ing before  the  woman  crowned  with  twelve  stars,  ready  to  devour  the  child 
she  was  about  to  bring  forth.  Rev.  12:  3.  When  Judaism  brought  forth 
Christianity,  what  was  it  but  Paganism  (so  far  as  the  visible  world  is  concer- 
ned) that  stood  ready  to  destroy  it  ?  Paganism,  as  well  as  Judaism  and 
Christianity,  had  its  spiritual  seat  in  '  heavenly  places,'  up  to  that  time ;  and 
we  regard  the  dragon,  the  woman,  and  her  child,  as  symbols  of  those  three 
powers.  Next  we  find  the  devil,  after  fighting  for  his  place  in  heaven,  de- 
feated and  cast  out.  Ver.  9.  Recurring  to  the  account  of  the  man  of  sin,  we 
see  that  self-exalting  monster  whose  place  was  '  in  the  temple  of  G-od,'  des* 
troyed  by  the  brightness  of  Christ's  coming.  This  took  place  in  the  spiritual 
world,  and  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  was  the 
travail  of  the  woman  that  brought  forth  the  man-^child.  The  great  spirit  of 
idolatry  was  then  first  ejected  from  the  '  heavenly  places.'  The  devil  next 
is  represented  as  wreaking  his  vengeance  on  the  inhabifers  of  the  earth,  by 
persecuting  the  woman  and  ^  the  remnant  of^her  seed.'  Ver.  13 — 17.  This 
clearly  represents  the  bloody  rage  of  Paganism  against  the  '  martyr  church* 
during  the  first  ages  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But  Satan's  time 
was  short.  '  I  saw,'  says  John,  '  an  angel  come  down  from  heaven,  having 
the  key  of  the  bottomless  pit  and  a  great  chain  in  his  hand.  And  he  laid 
hold  on  the  dragon,  that  old  serpent,  which  is  the  Devil,  and  Satan,  and 
bound  him  a  thousand  years  ;  and  cast  him  into  the  bottomless  pit,  and  shut 
him  up,  and  set  a  seal  upon  him,  that  he  should  deceive  the  nations  no  more 
till  the  thousand  years  should  be  fulfilled.'  Rev.  20:  1—3.  Without  at- 
tempting a  precise  explanation  of  this  passage,  it  is  sufficient  for  our  present 


840  THK    MILLENNIUM. 

purpose  to  say,  that  \ye  regard  it  as  a  representation  of  the  suppression  of 
idolatry,  and  the  restraint  of  Pagan  influences  throughout  the  territory  com- 
monly called  Christendom,  during  the  middle  ages.  It  is  a  fact,  whether 
we  rightly  interpret  and  apply  it,  or  not,  that  Paganism  was  suppressed  in 
the  Roman  Empire  shortly  after  the  '  martyr  age.'  The  accession  of  Con- 
stantino to  the  throne  gave  Christianity  the  ascendancy  in  A.  D.  323  ;  and 
though  idolatry  was  afterwards,  to  some  extent,  tolerated,  in  the  course  of  a 
few  centuries  it  was  utterly  banished  and  barred  out,  by  the  edicts  of  other 
emperors ;  by  the  triumph  of  Christianity  over  the  barbarous  nations  that 
overran  the  Roman  Empire,  and  settled  the  west  of  Europe ;  and  finally,  by 
the  rise  of  Mahommedanism  in  the  East,  which  maintained  by  fire  and  sword 
the  unity  of  God,  and  stood  for  ages  as  a  bulwark  against  idolatry,  separa- 
ting Europe  from  the  territories  of  Paganism.  We  may  safely  say,  in  round 
numbers,  that  for  a  thousand  years  the  influences  of  Paganism  were  excluded 
from  Christendom.  Yet,  during  this  period  the  beast,  that  represents  false 
Christianity,  reigned  in  Satan's  stead  ;  and  the  Millennium,  instead  of  being 
a  day  of  glory  to  the  nations  of  the  world,  was  a  period  that  is  well  charac- 
terized as  the  '  dark  ages.'  In  fact,  the  very  darkness  and  imbecility  of 
those  ages,  by  limiting  the  intercourse  of  nations,  and,  as  it  were,  secluding 
Christendom  in  monastic  solitude,  helped  to  exclude  Paganism  from  its  an- 
cient seat. 

But  Satan  was  cast  into  the  '  bottomless  pit. ^  How  is  this  to  be  under- 
stood ?  What  is  the  '  bottomless  pit  f  This  question  is  easily  answered  by 
recurring  to  the  original.  The  word  translated  '  bottomless  pit'  is  that  from 
which  the  English  word  abyss  is  derived,  and  should  have  been  translated  the 
abyss  or  the  deep.  It  does  not  refer,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  to  hell,  or  to 
a  place  of  punishment,  but  is  equivalent  to  the  word  sea.  This  may  be  seen 
by  comparing  Rev.  17:  8,  with  13:  1.  The  same  beast  is  the  subject  of  dis- 
course in  both  of  these  passages :  and  in  one  of  them  he  is  described  as  as- 
cending out  of  the  '  bottomless  pit,'  or  the  abyss  ;  and  in  the  other,  as  rising 
out  of  '  the  sea.'  Now  we  have  a  definition  of  '  many  waters,'  in  Rev.  17: 
15,  which  may  also  be  taken  for  a  definition  of  '  the  sea,'  or  the  abyss,  out  of 
which  the  beast  (as  also  the  locusts  of  the  fifth  trumpet,  ch.  9:  1)  ascended, 
and  into  which  Satan  was  cast.  '  The  waters  which  thou  sawest  are  peoples 
and  multitudes  and  nations  and  tongues."^  According  to  this  definition,  we 
understand,  that  as.the  locusts,  (chap.  9:  3,)  which  evidently  represent  the 
Mohammedans,  poured  forth  from  the  chaotic  regions  of  the  eastern  world, 
as  the  beast  whose  body  was  formed  chiefly  of  the  barbarians  that  overran  the 
Roman  Empire,  also  came  out  of  the  same  eastern  abyss ;  so  Satan,  or  the 
spirit  of  idolatry,  when  expelled  from  Christendom,  was  cast  into  the  same 
abyss,  and  there  confined  a  thousand  years. 

The  most  difiicult  matter  still  remains  to  be  explained  ;  and  that  is,  the  re- 
lease of  Satan  at  the  expiration  of  the  Millennium.  Our  theory  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  spirit  of  Paganism  has  been  let  loose  again  upon  Christen- 
dom, since  the  end  of  the  '  dark  ages.'  What  evidence  is  there  of  this  in  his- 
tory ?  We  will  simply  mention  four  facts  which  we  regard  as  tokens  of  the 
loosing  of  Satan.    1.  Mohammedauisui;  which  was  an  important  part  of  the 


THE    MILLENNIUM.  341 

chain  with  which  Paganism  was  bound,  has  within  the  last  few  centuries  fallen 
into  decay.  2.  During  the  same  period  the  Russian  Empire,  which,  as  to  a 
great  part  of  its  territory,  is  Pagan,  and  in  fact,  is  part  of  the  great  Asiatic 
abyss  out  of  which  the  locusts  and  the  beast  arose,  has  become  a  leading  power 
in  Europe.  3.  The  channels  of  communication  between  Europe  and  the 
East — which  during  the  dark  ages  were  closed — have  been  opened  by  the  im- 
provements of  navigation,  and  the  revival  of  commercial  enterprise  ;  and  in 
all  communications  between  good  and  evil,  where  fallen  human  nature  alone  is 
concerned,  evil  has  the  advantage.  Instead  of  imagining  that  England  by 
her  eastern  enterprises  has  civilized  Asia,  we  apprehend  that  Asia  has  well 
nigh  paganized  the  spirit  of  England.  4.  The  concomitant,  and  in  fact  one 
principal  element  of  the  Reformation,  was  what  is  called  the  '  revival  of  let- 
ters ;'  which  was  nothing  more  than  a  re-enthronement  of  Greek  and  Latin 
[  i.  e.  Pagani  intellect.  The  spirit  of  heathen  Rome  and  Greece,  in  the 
16th  century,  spread  itself  over  all  Christendom  ;  and  at  this  day  it  reigns 
supreme  in  the  colleges  and  schools  of  Europe  and  this  country.  Such  facts 
as  these  satisfy  us  that  at  the  very  time  (whenever  it  was)  that  God  began 
to  move  the  world  by  the  spirit  of  Reform,  Satan  also  was  loosed,  and  went 
forth  to  gather  the  nations  to  battle.* 

Thus  we  have  shown  that  the  account  of  the  binding  and  loosing  of  Satan, 
in  the  20th  of  Revelations,  is  consistent  with  our  first  position  that  the  second 
advent,  the  first  resurrection,  and  the  Millennium,  are  past.  "We  may  add  in 
conclusion,  that  the  views  presented  in  this  article,  lead  us  to  believe  that  the 
dragon,  the  beast,  and  the  false  prophet,  are  now  engaged  in  their  work  of 
gathering  the  nations  ;  and  that  the  battle  of  the  great  day,  which  precedes 
the  final  resurrection  and  judgment,  is  the  scene  next  to  come. 

*  It  appears  by  the  following-  extract  from  Le  Bas's  life  of  Wielif— the  father  of  the 
Reformation — that  our  theory,  in  some  of  its  g-eneral  features,  is  not  of  very  recent  or 
heretical  orig-in.  At  the  very  time  of  Satan's  irruption,  Christendom  seems  to  have  had 
an  instinctive  or  an  inspired  discernment  of  his  presence  :  — 

"In  the  days  of  Wielif,  there  v^^andered  about  Christendom  a  persuasion,  that  the 
world  had  seen  an  end  of  the  Apocalyptic  period  of  a  thousand  years,  during  which  Sa- 
tan was  to  be  bound,  and  that  he  was  then  actually  looseti  from  that  confinement,  and 
was  in  the  full  exercise  of  his  reniaining  privilege  of  mischief  It  appears,  from  a  pas- 
sage in  Fox's  Book  of  Martyrs,  that  some  reckoned  the  thousand  years  from  the  birth 
of  Christ:  others,  as  he  conceives,  more  correctlj'^,  from  the  ce&f  ation  of  the  church's 
suflerings  in  the  days  of  Constantine.  Accofding  to  either  supposition,  the  period  had 
expired  previously  to  the  birth  of  Wielif.  To  this  opinion  there  are  repeated  allusions 
iu  the  writings  of  Wielif  He  seems  to  speak  of  it  as  a  thing  beyond  all  controversy  ; 
and  to  consider  the  Christian  community  as  once  more  exposed  to  the  desperate  malice 
of  its  invisible  persecutor  and  adversary." 


§  49.    THE   '  TWO  WITNESSES.' 

The  history  of  the  two  witnesses  occupies  the  whole  space  between  the 
first  and  second  judgments.  Commencing  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
(see  Rev.  11:  2,  3,)  it  extends  to  the  completion  of  the  second  woe,  which 
immediately  precedes  the  trumpet  of  the  last  judgment.  Verses  12 — 18. 
Forty  and  two  months,  or  (dropping  the  symbol)  1260  years,  reaching  to 
A.  D.  1330,  is  the  period  of  their  appointed  testimony  ;  but  their  death,  res- 
urrection, ascension  to  heaven,  and  the  earthquake  and  slaughter  which  con- 
stitute the  second  woe,  are  posterior  to  their  testimony,  and  occupy  an  indefi- 
nite period  subsequent  to  the  1260  years.  These  are  evidently  the  events 
which  have  taken  place  since  1330,  when  the  dispensation  immediately  pre- 
paratory to  the  second  judgment  commenced.  We  may  divide  the  whole 
period  covered  by  the  Apocalypse  into  four  parts,  viz :  1,  the  period  of  the 
the  first  judgment ;  2,  the  period  of  the  testimony  of  the  two  witnesses  ;  3, 
the  period  of  the  ascension  of  the  two  witnesses  ;  4,  the  period  of  the  second 
judgment.  The  first  and  second  of  these  periods  are  clearly  defined ;  but 
the  boundaries  of  the  other  two  are  yet  to  be  ascertained. 

Since  the  two  witnesses,  then,  are  evidently  the  representatives  of  the  in- 
termediate dispensation  between  the  first  and  second  judgments — i.  e.,  of  the 
dispensation  which  has  existed  over  Christendom  since  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem— it  is  a  matter  of  some  importance  to  determine  who  they  are,  or 
what  they  signify.  We  are  not  prepared  to  solve  all  the  enigmas  of  their 
history ;  but  we  have  a  general  theory  about  them,  which,  to  our  own  mind^ 
is  satisfactorily  established^  and  sufiicient  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the 
character  of  the  dispensation  which  succeeded  the  apostolic  age  and  is  now 
approaching  its  end.     This  theory  we  will  proceed  to  expound. 

In  the  first  place,  the  two  witnesses  are  declared  to  be  'the  two  olive  trees 
and  the  two  candlesticks  standing  before  the  God  of  the  earth.'  Ver.  4. — 
This  refers  us  to  the  4th  chapter  of  Zechariah,  where  the  prophet  records  his 
vision  of  a  candlestick  with  its  lamps,  supplied  with  oil  by  two  olive  trees. 
^  These,'  said  the  angel,  referring  to  the  olive  trees,  '  are  the  two  anointed 
ones  that  stand  by  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth.'  Ver.  14.  The  two  witnesses, 
then,  are  the  '  two  anointed  ones'  who  stood  by  the  Lord  of  the  earth,  in 
Zechariah's  time.  From  this  we  infer  clearly  two  things  :  1,  That  the  two 
witnesses  were  literal  persons,  and  not  symbols  ;  for  if  they  were  symbols, 
then  the  olive  trees  would  be  symbols  of  symbols,  and  the  angel's  professed 
explanation  when  he  said,  '  These  are  the  two  anointed  ones,'  &c.,  w^ould  be 
no  explanation  at  all,  but  only  a  transmutation  of  one  set  of  symbols  into 
another  :  2,  That  the  tAvo  witnesses  were  not  inhabitants  of  the  visible  w^orld, 
but  of  some  inner  mansion  ;  for  at  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
when  they  were  to  commence  their  testimony  among  the  Gentiles,  they  must 
have  been  four  or  five  hundred  years  old,  since  they  existed  as  the  two 
anointed  ones  of  God  at  the  time  of  the  building  of  the  second  temple  by 
Zerubbabel. 


THE  TWO  WITNESSES.  343 

By  an  attentive  perusal  of  Zech.  4,  the  reader  will  perceive  that  the  object 
of  the  vision  was  to  teach  the  prophet,  that  Zeriibbabel  was  sustained  in  his 
arduous  enterprise  of  rebuilding  the  temple,  not  by  his  own  strength,  but  by 
the  spirit  of  the  Lord  ;  (see  ver.  6  ;)  just  as  the  light  of  a  lamp  is  sustained 
by  the  oil  in  its  bowl.  And  then  the  view  of  the  seer  is  carried  back  into 
the  invisible  world,  where  he  is  shown  the  channel  through  which  the  spirit 
of  God  was  ministered  to  Zerubbabel.  The  oil  poured  itself  into  the  lamp 
from  two  olive  trees.  These  olive  trees  w^ere  two  anointed  persons,  who  stood 
before  the  God  of  the  earth,  deriving  their  power  from  him.  The  links  in 
the  chain  of  agency  by  Avhich  the  temple  w^aa  being  built  were,  1,  the  God 
of  the  earth  ;  2,  the  two  anointed  ones  who  stood  before  him ;  and  3,  Zerub- 
babel and  the  visible  laborers. 

It  appears,  then,  that  in  Zechariah's  time  there  were  two  anointed  ones 
who  stood  as  spiritual  mediators  between  God  and  the  visible  Jewish  church, 
and  superintended  the  building  of  the  temple.  Who  were  they  ?  The  two 
principal  agents  of  God  under  the  Jewish  dispensation  were  certainly  Moses 
and  Elijah.  If  the  two  anointed  ones  were  men,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that 
they  were  the  two  men  who  had  the  most  agency  and  took  the  most  interest 
in  the  affairs  of  the  Jewish  dispensation.  Moses  was  in  some  sense  a  spiritual 
mediator  while  on  earth ;  (see  Numb.  11:  25  ;)  and  Elijah,  five  hundred 
years  after  his  ascension,  was  revealed  spiritually  according  to  the  prediction 
of  Malachi,  (4:  5,)  and  the  declaration  of  Christ,  (Matt.  11:  14,)  in  John 
the  Baptist.  There  is  reason  therefore  to  suspect,  especially  from  the  last 
mentioned  fact,  that  Moses  and  Elijah,  after  their  departure  from  this  world, 
continued  to  exercise-  a  spiritual  supervision  and  mediation  in  relation  to  the 
Jewish  economy,  and  were  the  two  anointed  ones  through  whom  God  endued 
Zerubbabel  with  power.  And  as  the  two  anointed  ones  of  Zechariah  and  the 
two  witnesses  of  the  Apocalypse  are  expressly  declared  to  be  identical,  there 
is  the  same  reason  to  suspect  that  the  two  witnesses  also  were  Moses  and 
Elijah. 

Again,  Christ  (who  evidently  spoke  through  his  angel  in  Eev.  11:  3) 
called  the  two  anointed  ones  '  my  two  witnesses,'  as  though  John,  to  whom 
he  spoke,  knew  that  he  had  two  witnesses,  and  would  readily  understand  to 
whom  he  referred.  Who  then  w^ould  be  likely  to  occur  to  John's  mind  as 
being  the  two  witnesses  of  Christ  ?  Most  obviously  Moses  and  Elijah,  whom 
John  (with  Peter  and  James)  had  seen  with  Christ  in  the  cloud  of  glory  on 
the  mount.  Matt.  IT:  3.  The  manifest  purport  of  the  transfiguration-scene- 
was  to  show  the  disciples,  among  other  things,  that  Moses  and  Elijah  were 
yet  living  and  acting  in  the  affairs  of  God's  kingdom,  and  that  they  were  the 
two  prime  ministers  of  Christ- — the  anointed  ones  that  stood  before  him  as  the 
sovereign  of  the  world.  John  had  seen  Christ's  two  witnesses  under  circum- 
stances never  to  be  forgotten ;  and  he  would  readily  understand  that  they 
were  the  same  as  the  two  anointed  ones  who  gave  power  to  Zerubbabel. 

Further,  the  power  which  is  ascribed  to  the  two  witnesses,  (ver.  5,6,)  of 
destroying  their  enemies  by  miraculous  fire,  of  shutting  up  the  rain  of  heaven,, 
of  turning  waters  into  blood,  and  of  smiting  the  earth  with  all  plagues,  is 
precisely  the  kmd  of  power  which  was  given  pecuHarly  to  Moses  and  Ehjah 


844  THE   TWO   WITNESSES. 

while  on  earth.  Moses  turned  waters  into  blood,  (Ex.  7:  20,)  and  smote 
Egypt  with  all  manner  of  plagues.  Elijah  destroyed  two  companies  of  fifty 
by  miraculous  fire,  (2  Kings  1:  9,  &c.,)  and  shut  heaven  so  that  it  rained 
not  for  three  years  and  six  months.  IKings  17:  1.  We  do  not  undertake  to 
say  specifically  what  manifestation  of  these  powers  is  announced  in  the  apoca- 
lyptical vision  under  consideration ;  but  we  affirm  that  the  language  of  the 
annunciation  is  exactly  fitted  to  suggest  the  idea  that  the  two  witnesses  were 
Moses  and  Elijah. 

The  threefold  combination  of  coincidences  which  we  have  sketched,  convin- 
ces us  that  when  Christ  said,  '  I  will  give  power  to  my  two  witnesses,  and 
they  shall  prophesy  [in  the  outer  court]  a  thousand  two  hundred  and  three- 
score days,'  he  meant, '  I  will  give  power  to  Moses  and  Elijah,  who  have  been 
my  witnesses  and  agents  in  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  they  shall  continue 
their  official  work  among  the  Gentiles  for  another  period  of  1260  years.' 

We  are  not  prepared  to  propose  any  theory  in  regard  to  the  manner  in 
which  it  is  to  be  understood  that  the  two  witnesses  were  slain  by  the  beast 
that  ascended  out  of  the  bottomless  pit,  and  afterward  were  raised  and  taken 
up  to  heaven.  These  are  details,  the  explanation  of  which  requires  a  fuller 
knowledge  of  the  nature  and  transactions  of  the  spiritual  world  than  we  at 
present  possess.  Nor  is  the  explanation  of  them  necessary  to  our  present 
purpose.  It  is  sufficient  that  we  can  gather  from  them  that  after  1260  years, 
i.  e.  in  1330,  the  two  witnesses  finished  their  testimony  among  the  Gentiles, 
by  a  transaction  resembling  the  sacrifice  of  their  master,  and  have  since  tri- 
umphed over  their  enemies,  and  prepared  the  way  of  the  last  judgment. 

What  we  wish  to  bring  distinctly  to  view  as  the  result  of  our  theory,  is, 
that  the  dispensation  which  commenced  from  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
was  not  properly  speaking  the  Christian  dispensation,  i.  e.  a  continuation  of 
the  dispensation  introduced  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  but  a  second  edi- 
tion of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  or  a  continuation  of  the  dispensation  committed 
to  Moses  and  Elijah.  The  spiritual  life  of  what  has  been  called  the  Chris- 
tian church  since  the  apostolic  age  has  been  not  a  revelation  of  Christ  himself, 
but  of  the  two  witnesses  who  went  before  him.  John  the  Baptist  was  a  mani- 
festation of  Elijah  ;  so  that  it  was  in  fact  Elijah  that  was  sent  as  '  a  voice  in 
the  wilderness  to  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord.'  This  was  his  office,  and  the 
same  was  the  office  of  Moses,  and  of  tbo  whole  Jewish  dispensation.  All  that 
is  said  of  the  inferiority  of  John  the  Baptist  to  Christ,  may  properly  be  taken 
as  an  index  of  the  inferiority  of  the  two  witnesses  to  their  Master,  and  of  their 
entire  dispensation,  to  the  Christian. 

The  witnesses  were  two,  because  the  preparatory  dispensation  was  twofold, 
legal  and  prophetic.  Moses  was  the  representative  of  the  law.  Elijah  was 
the  representative  of  the  prophetic  spirit,  which  was  intermediate  between  the 
law  and  the  gospel,  resting  in  the  former,  but  looking  forward  to  the  latter. 
Christ  was  the  representative  of  the  gospel.  As  Moses  and  Elijah  are  called 
Christ's  two  witnesses,  so  Paul  says  with  a  remarkable  coincidence  of  lan- 
guage that  the  gospel  was  '  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets.'  Rom.  3: 
21.  The  dispensation  which  succeeded  the  apostohc  age,  has  plainly  borne 
the  marks  of  its  secondary  origin.     We  can  readily  trace  in  it  the  footsteps 


THE  FIRST  RESURRECTION. 


345 


of  the  two  witnesses,  but  not  of  Christ.  It  has  dealt  largely  in  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  law,  and  it  has  nourished  within  itself  the  hopes  of  the  prophets. 
But  the  righteousness  of  God  revealed  by  the  gospel,  has  been  wanting.  As 
Christ  said  '  the  prophets  and  the  law  prophesied  until  John,'  so  we  may  now 
say,  with  the  Apocalypse  for  our  voucher,  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  brief 
parenthesis  of  the  primitive  church,  the  prophets  and  the  law  prophesied  at 
least  till  A.  D.  1330. 


§50.    THE  FIRST  RESURRECTION. 

The  nature,  subjects  and  period  of  the  *  first  resurrection,'  described 
by  John  in  Rev.  20,,  may  be  determined  with  entire  certainty  by  the  follow- 
ing process. 

I.  We  compare  1  Cor.  15:  51,  52,  and  1  Thess.  4:  16,  17,  with  Matt. 
24:  29—34. 


1  CoR.  AND  1  Thess. 

"  We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall 
all  be  changed.  In  a  moment,  in  the 
twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump  : 
for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead 
shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we 
shall  be  changed." 

"The  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from 
heaven  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of 
the  archangel  and  with  the  trump  of 
God :  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise 
first :  then  we  which  are  alive  and  re- 
main, shall  be  caught  up  together  with 
them  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in 
the  air ;  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with 
the  Lord." 

The  parallelism  of  these  passages  is  manifest  in  the  following  particulars. 
1.  Both  columns  announce  the  second  advent  of  Christ.  2.  Both  predict 
the  sounding  of  the  angelic  trumpet.  3.  Both  make  that  sounding  the  sig- 
nal of  the  gathering  of  the  saints.  In  Matthew  the  gathering  is  simply 
announced,  without  explanation  of  its  nature.  In  the  passages  from  1  Corin- 
thians and  1  Thessalonians  the  gathering  is  described  as  a  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  a  change  of  the  living  from  mortality  to  immortality,  and  a  translation 
of  all  to  the  immediate  presence  of  Christ.  4.  Both  columns  set  the  time  of 
this  great  transaction  very  near  to  the  period  of  Christ's  personal  ministry. 
In  the  first,  language  is  used  which  plainly  indicates  that  Paul  expected  that 
he  and  others  cotemporary  with  him  would  be  alive  at  the  time  of  the  second 
advent  j  and  in  the  second,  it  is  expressly  afiirmed  that  Christ  would  come 
43 


Matt.  24:  29—34. 

"  Immediately  after  the  tribulation  of 
those  days  [A.  D.  70]  shall  the  sun  be 
darkened ;  .  .  .  and  then  shall  appear 
the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  in  heaven  ; 
and  then  shall  all  the  tribes  of  the  earth 
mourn  ;  and  they  shall  see  the  Son  of 
man  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven, 
with  power  and  great  glory.  And  he 
shall  send  his  angels  with  a  great  sound 
of  a  trumpet,  and  they  shall  gather  to- 
gether his  elect  from  the  four  winds, — 
from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other. 
.  .  .  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  this  gene- 
ration shall  not  pass  till  all  these  things 
be  fulfilled." 


346 


fKE  FIRST  RESURRECTION'. 


ftnd  gather  Iiis  elect  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  tvithln 
the  Hfetime  of  the  generation  then  present.  On  the  whole,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  both  refer  to  the  same  events.  Of  course  it  is  demonstrated  that 
Matt.  24:  31  announces  a  literal  resurrection — a  gathering  of  the  saints,  liv- 
ing and  dead,  from  Hades  and  Mortality* 

II.  We  compare  Matt.  24:  29—31,  with  Rev.  6  and  T. 


Rev.  6  and  7. 

Ver.  12,  "I  beheld  when  he  had  open- 
ed the  sixth  seal,  and  lo,  there  was  a 
great  earthquake  ;  and  the  sun  became 
black  as  sackcloth  of  hair,  and  the  moon 
became  as  blood :  and  the  stars  of  heav- 
en fell  unto  the  earth,  and  the  heaven 
departed  as  a  scroll,  &;c.  And  the  kings 
of  the  earth,  &c.,  hid  themselves  \n  the 
dens  and  in  the  rocks  of  the  mountains; 
and  said  to  the  mountains  and  rocksj. 
Fall  on  us,  and  hide  us  from  the  face  of 
him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne,  and  from 
the  wrath  of  the  Lamb;  for  the  great 
day  of  his  wrath  is  come  ;  and  who  shall 
be  able  to  stand?  And  after  these  things 
I  saw  four  angels  .  .  .  holding  the  four 
winds,  .  .  .  and  I  saw  another  angel 
having  the  seal  of  the  living  God,  and  he 
cried  with  a  loud  voice,  .  .  saying,  .  * 
Hurt  not  the  earth  .  .  .  till  we  have 
sealed  the  servants  of  our  God  in  their 
foreheads.  »  .  .  And  there  were  sealed 
an  hundred  and  forty  and  four  thousand 
of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  ;  of  the  tribe  of 
Juda  twelve  thousand  ;  of  the  tribe  of 
Reuben  twelve  thousand,  &;c.  And  lo 
a  great  multitude  .  .  of  all  nations  .  . 
stood  before  the  throne  and  before  the 
Lamb,  clothed  with  white  robes.  .  ,  » 
They  shall  hunger  no  more,  neither 
thirst  any  more,"  <Sz;c. 

The  general  identity  of  these  passages  is  too  evident  to  need  much  comment. 
In  the  last  paragraphs  of  the  parallel,  the  following  points  of  unity  may  be 
noticed.  1.  Both  passages  announce  a  gathering  of  the  saints  to  Christ.  2« 
Both  represent  it  as  a  gathering  from  the  four  winds.  3.  Both  ascribe  the 
gathering  to  the  instrumentality  of  angels.  4.  As  we  have  proved  that  the 
first  announces  in  general  language,  a  literal  resurrection,  so  in  the  second 
we  find  a  variety  of  terms  that  plainly  point  to  the  same  fact :  e.  g.,  the  saints 
are  sealed  with  the  '  seal  of  the  living  God  ;'  they  are  clothed  with  '  white 
robes  ;'  they  have  *  come  up  out  o/ great  tribulation  ;'  they  stand  before  God; 
tiiey  are  beyond  the  reach  of  hunger  and  thirst. 


Matt.  24:  29—31. 
"  Immediately  after  the  tribulation  of 
those  days  shall  the  sun  be  darkened, 
and  the  moon  shall  not  give  her  light, 
and  the  stars  shall  fall  from  heaven,  and 
the  powers  of  the  heavens  shall  be  sha- 
ken.  Then  shall  appear  the  sign  of 
the  Son  of  man  in  heaven  ;  and  then 
shall  all  the  tribes  of  the  earth  mourn. 
And  they  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  com- 
ing  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  with  power 
and  great  glory.  And  he  shall  send  his 
angels  with  a  great  sound  of  a  trumpet, 
and  they  shall  gather  his  elect  from  the 
four  winds,  from  one  end  of  heaven  to 
the  other." 


THE   FIRST   RESURRECTION.  847 

It  sliould  be  noticed  also  that  the  chronological  indices  in  the  two  passages 
exactly  agree.  In  Matthew,  the  time  fixed  for  the  advent  of  Christ  and  the 
gathering  of  the  saints,  was  within  the  lifetime  of  the  generation  living  when 
the  prophecy  was  uttered  ;  in  other  words,  '  immediately  after  the  tribulation* 
of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  A.  D.  70.  In  Rev.  6  and  7,  the  advent 
and  gathering  take  place  at  the  opening  of  the  sixth  seal,  previous  to  the 
sounding  of  any  of  the  trumpets  of  the  Gentile  dispensation,  and  immediately 
after  a  series  of  tribulations,  exactly  coi-responding  to  those  of  A.  D.  70, 
ushered  in  by  the  opening  of  the  first  five  seals. 

It  is  thus  made  certain  that  the  7th  chapter  of  Revelations  describes  the 
same  gathering  as  that  announced  in  Matt.  24:  31,  and  of  course  the  same 
resurrection  of  the  saints  from  Hades  and  Mortality,  as  that  announced  in 
1  Cor.  15:  52,  and  1  Thess.  4:  16, 17.  Thus  also  the  time  of  this  resurrec^ 
tion  is  fastened  with  a '  threefold  cord'  to  the  period  immediately  subsequent 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  before  the  commencement  of  the  times  of  tho 
Gentiles. 

We  must  here  glance  at  some  of  the  details  which  are  presented  in  Rev.  7, 
It  will  be  perceived  that  w^hile  Matt.  24:  31  predicts  the  gathering  of  the 
saints,  and  the  passages  in  1  Corinthians  and  1  Thessalonians  give  us  a  clue 
to  the  mode  of  the  gathering,  we  have  in  Rev.  7  a  sort  of  statistical  account 
of  the  number  and  national  origin  of  the  persons  gathered.  Twelve  thousand 
from  each  of  the  tribes  of  Israel— in  all  144,000  Jews— occupy  the  fore- 
ground of  the  resurrection-scene,  and  the  picture  is  filled  up  with  an  innu- 
merable multitude  '  of  all  nations  and  kindreds  and  peoples  and  tongues.' 
This  is  just  such  a  gathering  as  might  be  anticipated,  on  the  supposition  that 
it  was  the  general  harvest  of  the  saints  of  preceding  ages.  The  vision  cauv 
not  be  referred  Avith  the  least  plausibility  to  any  such  transactions  in  the  vis- 
ible world  as  the  conversion  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  to  Christianity;  for,  in  tha 
first  place,  the  number  of  Jews  that  embraced  Christianity  in  the  times  to 
which  the  prophecy  refers,  never  approached  the  sum  of  144,000  ;  and,  sec- 
ondly, their  classification  by  tribes,  was  then  obsolete.  It  is  as  evident  that 
the  assignment  of  the  144,000  to  the  original  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  is  to  be 
understood  literally,  as  it  is  that  the  innumerable  multitude  which  was  gath- 
ered with  them  came  literally  from  '  every  nation  and  kindred  and  people  and 
tongue.'  If  it  is  considered  that  for  two  thousand  years  the  religion  of  the 
true  God  had  made  its  abode  with  the  Jews,  it  is  easily  conceivable  that  twelve 
thousand  of  each  of  the  twelve  tribes  should  have  '  died  in  faith,'  and  have 
been  kept  in  store  for  the  resurrection  at  Christ's  advent.  And  it  is  equally 
rational  to  suppose  that  they  who  '  feared  God  and  worked  righteousness' 
among  the  Gentiles,  few  and  far  between  as  they  were  in  individual  nations 
and  times,  would  amount,  when  reckoned  for  the  whole  world,  and  for  all 
preceding  ages,  to  an  '  innumerable  multitude.' 

On  the  whole  it  is  sufficiently  evident  that  we  have  in  the  7th  of  Revela- 
tions a  specific  account  of  the  resurrection  of  the  '  Old  Testament  saints,' 
(including  of  course  the  saints  of  the  apostolic  age.)  As  the  Gentile  multi. 
tude  was  evidently  only  a  secondary  accompaniment  of  the  144,000  from  the 
tribes  of  Israel,  the  resurrection  under  consideratiou  may  properly  be  tenne^ 


348 


THE  FIRST  RESURRECTION. 


by  way  of  distinction,  the  resurrection  of  the  Jewish  church.     The  appropri- 
ate time  for  this  resurrection  was  at  the  close  of  the  Jewish  dispensation. 
III.  We  next  compare  Rev.  7:  2 — 4,  with  Rev.  14:  1 — 4. 


Rev.  14:  1—4. 
"  I  looked,  and  lo,  a  Lamb  stood  on 
the  Mount  Sion,  and  with  him  an  hun- 
dred and  forty.four  thousand,  having 
his  Father's  name  written  in  their  fore- 
heads. .  .  .  These  were  redeemed  from 
among  men,  being  the  first-fruits  unto 
God  and  the  Lamb." 


Rev.  7:  2—4. 

"  I  saw  another  angel  .  .  .  having 
the  seal  of  the  Hving  God  ;  and  he 
cried,  saying.  Hurt  not  the  earth  .  .  . 
till  we  have  sealed  the  servants  of  our 
God  in  their  foreheads.  .  .  .  And  there 
were  sealed  an  hundred  and  forty.four 
thousand  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel." 

It  is  obvious  that  both  of  these  passages  refer  to  the  same  ransomed  as- 
sembly. The  number  in  each  is  the  same.  In  each,  the  saints  are  sealed  in 
their  foreheads  with  the  name  of  the  living  God. 

Now  as  we  have  proved  that  the  first  passage  announces  a  literal  resurrec- 
tion of  the  Jewish  church,  which  took  place  immediately  after  the  close  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  we  transfer  this  information  to  the  second  passage,  and 
by  means  of  it  determine  the  meaning  of  the  concluding  verse — '  These  were 
redeemed  from  among  men,  being  the  first-fruits  unto  God  and  the  Lamb.' 
Under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  the  first  ripe  fruits  were  offered  to  God  before 
the  general  harvest  was  gathered.  In  some  sense,  therefore,  the  passage  be- 
fore us  represents  the  church  of  144,000  as  being  presented  to  God  before 
the  general  gathering  of  mankind.  Our  previous  demonstrations  show  in  what 
sense  this  was  true.  That  Jewish  church  was  first  presented  to  God  in  the 
resmrection.  The  term  '-  first  fruits^  is  here  applied  to  the  144,000  in  the 
same  way  as  it  is  applied  to  Christ  in  1  Cor.  15:  23.  With  reference  to  the 
whole  race  of  man,  Christ  was  the  '  first-fruits'  of  the  resurrection  harvest. 
With  reference  to  the  great  mass,  to  be  raised  after  the  times  of  the  Gentiles, 
the  Jewish  church  was  the  '  first-fruits.'  It  is  proved  then  by  the  explicit 
testimony  of  inspiration,  as  well  as  by  every  consideration  of  reason,  that  the 
resurrection  of  the  Jewish  church  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, Avas  the  ^ first  resurrection.' 

IV.  We  turn  now  to  Rev.  20:  4 — 13,  and  apply  to  its  interpretation  the 
results  of  our  preceding  investigations.  The  portions  of  the  passage  which  are 
essential  to  our  present  purpose  are  the  following : — 

'  I  saw  the  souls  of  them  that  were  beheaded  for  the  witness  of  Jesus  and 
for  the  word  of  God,  .  .  .  and  they  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand 
years.  .  .  .  But  the  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not  again  till  the  thousand  years 
were  finished.  This  is  the  first  resurrection.  Blessed  and  holy  is  he  that 
hath  part  in  the  first  resurrection.  .  .  .  They  shall  be  priests  of  God  and  of 
Christ,  and  shall  reign  with  him  a  thousand  years.  When  the  thousand  years 
are  expired,  [Gog  and  Magog  are  gathered  and  brought  up  to  the  battle  of 
the  great  day  of  God  Almighty.  Fire  from  heaven  consumes  them,  and  the 
devil  that  deceived  them  is  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.]  And  I  saw  i\\Q  dead, 
small  and  great,  stand  before  God  ;  .  .  .  and  the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  which 
were  in  it,  and  death  and  hell  delivered  up  the  dead  which  were  in  them,  and 
they  were  judged  every  man  according  to  their  works.' 


THE  FIRST  RESURRECTION. 


349 


Here  we  have  a  description  of  two  resurrections,  separated  from  each  other 
by  an  interval  of  many  ages.  One  of  them  is  called  the  '  first  resurrection' 
with  manifest  reference  to  the  other  as  the  second.  Both  therefore  are  of  the 
same  kind.  If  one  is  a  literal  resurrection,  the  other  must  also  be  literal.  It 
is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  the  second  is  a  literal  resurrection.  Of  course 
the  same  is  true  of  the  first.  Now  as  we  have  proved  that  a  literal  resurrec- 
tion of  the  Jewish  church  took  place  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem, and  that  this  was  the  first  resurrection  ;  and  as  it  is  evident  that 
there  can  be  but  one  first  resurrection,  it  is  fairly  demonstrated  that  the  res- 
urrection denominated  '  the  first'  in  the  above  passage,  is  identical  with  that  of 
the  Jewish  church.  This  conclusion  will  be  confirmed  by  comparing  the  spe- 
cific characteristics  of  the  persons  described  as  the  subjects  of  the  resurrection 
in  question,  with  the  characteristics  of  the  church  that  was  raised  at  the  close 
of  the  Jewish  dispensation. 

1.  Compare  Rev.  14:  3—5,  with  Rev.  20:  6. 


Chap.  14. 
"  They  sung  a  new  song,  .  .  .  and 
no  man  could  learn  that  song  but  the 
144,000  which  were  redeemed  from  the 
earth.  These  are  they  which  were  not 
defiled,  ...  In  their  mouth  was  found 
no  guile,  for  they  are  without  fault." 


Chap.  20. 
"  They  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ 
a  thousand  years.  But  the  rest  of  the 
dead  lived  not  again  till  the  thousand 
years  were  finished.  This  is  the  first 
resurrection.  Blessed  and  holy  is  he 
that  hath  part  in  the  first  resurrection." 


One  of  these  passages  is  manifestly  the  echo  of  the  other.  The  peculiar 
blessedness  and  holiness  attributed  to  the  subjects  of  the  first  resurrection  in 
the  second  of  them,  is  more  minutely  described  in  the  first,  and  is  there  ex- 
pressly assigned  to  the  144,000,  or,  as  we  have  before  proved,  to  the  Jewish 
church  which  was  raised  from  the  dead  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

2.  Compare  Rev.  6:  9—11,  with  Rev.  20:  4—6. 


Chap.  6. 
«  When  he  had  opened  the  fifth  seal, 
I  saw  under  the  altar  the  souls  of  them 
that  were  slain  for  the  word  of  God  and 
for  the  testimony  which  they  held. — 
And  they  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  saying, 
How  long,  O  Lord,  holy  and  true,  dost 
thou  not  judge  and  avenge  our  blood  on 
thetn  that  dwell  on  the  earth.  And 
white  robes  v/ere  given  to  them  ;  and  it 
was  said  unto  them  that  they  should 
rest  yet  for  a  little  season,  until  their 
fellow-servants,  and  their  brethren  that 
should  be  killed  as  they  were,  should  be 
fulfilled." 

The  same  company  of  the  martyred  dead  are  the  subjects  of  discourse  in 
both  of  these  passages.  In  the  first  passage  they  are  represented  as  awaiting 
the  redemption  of  the  judgment.  In  the  second  their  judgment  is  past,  and 
they  are  described  as  standmg  with  Christ  in  the  blessedness  and  holiness  of 


Chap.  20. 

<'  I  saw  thrones,  and  they  sat  upon 
them,  and  judgment  was  given  unto 
them  :  and  I  saw  the  souls  of  them 
that  were  beheaded  for  the  witness  of 
Jesus  and  for  the  word  of  God  ;  .  .  . 
and  they  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ 
a  thousand  years.  But  the  rest  of  the 
dead  lived  not  again  until  the  thousand 
years  were  finished.  This  is  the  first 
resurrection.  Blessed  and  holy  is  he 
that  hath  part  in  the  first  resurrec- 
tion." 


350  THE   FIRST  BESURRECTION. 

the  resurrection.  The  scene  of  the  first  passage  occurs  at  the  opening  of  the 
fifth  seal,  just  after  the  awful  tribulations  that  follow  the  opening  of  the  former 
seals,  (i.  e.  the  tribulations  of  A.  D.  70,)  and  just  before  the  second  advent  and 
the  resurrection-gathering  which  follow  the  opening  of  the  sixth  seal.  It  is 
manifest  that  these  same  martyrs  who  cried  for  deliverance  at  the  opening  of 
the  fifth  seal,  were  the  subjects  of  the  gathering  under  the  sixth.  And  thus 
it  is  evident  that  they  who  are  described  in  Rev.  20  as  partakers  in  the  first 
resurrection,  are  also  identical  with  those  who  were  gathered  under  the  sixth 
seal.* 

In  view  of  all  these  coinciding  tokens,  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  true  inter- 
pretation of  the  vision  in  Rev.  20:  4 — 6,  is  as  follows:  1.  The  resurrection 
there  described,  was,  as  to  its  nature,  a  rising  from  Hades  and  Mortality — 
that  very  resurrection  which  the  apostles  and  primitive  believers  constantly 
represented  as  very  near,  and  which  Paul  in  1  Cor.  15:  52  and  1  Thess.  4. 
16,  specifically  defined  as  a  literal  resurrection.  2.  Its  subjects  were  the 
saints  of  all  previous  ages — in  three  classes,  viz.  martyrs,  Jews,  and  Gen- 
tiles. 3.  Its  TIME  was  immediately  after  the  tribulations  of  A.  D.  70,  be- 
tween the  opening  of  the  sixth  and  seventh  seals,  and  more  than  a  thousand 
years  previous  to  the  time  appointed  for  the  general  resurrection. 

We  subjoin  the  following  corollaries  of  this  conclusion. 

1.  The  millennium,  properly  so  called,  being  the  period  between  the  first 
and  second  resurrection,  is  past.  It  was  the  millennium,  not  of  saints  in  this 
world,  but  of  the  saints  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  in  the  resurrection. 

2.  We  are  now  in  a  position  to  see  why  the  New  Testament  constantly 
places  the  commencement  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  at  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  properly  the  kingdom  of  the  resur- 
rectio7i.  Christ  entered  the  resurrection  himself  soon  after  his  death ;  and, 
so  far  as  the  king  was  concerned,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  began  from  his  as- 
cension. But  his  destined  subjects  in  Hades  and  Mortahty,  did  not  enter 
the  resurrection  till  his  coming  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  dispensation.  That 
therefore  was  more  properly  the  era  of  the  commencement  of  his  kingdom. 

3.  We  understand  now  what  Christ  meant,  when  he  promised  his  apostles 
that  at  his  ascension  of  the  throne,  they  also  should  'sit  upon  twelve  thrones, 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. '^  Probably  most  persons  would  find  it 
difficult  to  tell  where  '  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel'  over  whom  the  apostles 

*  It  should  be  notieed  that  while  the  church  of  the  first  resurrection  is  described  in 
Rev.  7,  as  a  complex  body,  consisting-  on  the  one  hand  of  144,000  from  the  tribes  of  Is- 
rael, and  on  the  other  of  a  vast  multitude  from  other  nations,  the  same  cliurch  is  desig-- 
uated  in  Rev.  14:  1 — 4,  simply  by  the  number  of  the  Jewish  portion  of  it,  i.  e.  144,000; 
and  in  Rev.  20:  4 — 6  it  is  designated  by  the  still  narrower  expression — *  the  souls  of  them 
that  toere  beheaded,'  &c.  This  variation  indicates  that  there  were  three  distinct  grades 
in  that  church.  As  the  144,000  Jews  were  distinguished  as  the  nucleus  of  the  Gentile 
multitude,  so  within  this  nucleus  there  appears  to  have  been  a  still  more  distinguished 
body,  consisting  of  those  who  in  all  ages  hud  suffered  death  for  the  word  of  God.  This 
being  the  constitution  of  the  church,  it  is  obvious  that  it  might  properly  and  naturally 
be  designated  by  reference  either  to  the  whole  of  its  complex  body,  or  to  the  Jewish 
portion  of  it,  as  being  its  soul,  or  to  the  company  of  the  martyrs,  as  being  its  heart. — 
We  do  not  understand  from  the  language  of  Rev.  20:  4,  that  none  but  those  who  literally 
suffered  martyrdom,  had  part  in  the  first  resurrection,  but  that  the  martyrs  of  the  Jewish 
dispensation  and  of  the  apostolic  age,  were  the  prominent  persons  of  the  drama. 


BUSH   ON  THE  RESURRECTION.  351 

were  to  reign,  could  be  found.  In  this  world  the  original  distinction  of  the 
tribes  has  long  been  obliterated,  and,  according  to  the  common  apprehension, 
no  such  distinction  has  any  place  in  heaven.  But  we  have  found  a  very  ex- 
plicit disclosure  of  the  fact  that  the  central  body  of  the  '  church  of  the  first- 
born' consists  of  a  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand  Jews,  divided  into  twelve 
tribes  of  twelve  thousand  each.  Thus  we  find  a  place  for  the  twelve  thrones 
of  the  apostles. 


§  51.    BUSH  ON  THE  RESURRECTION. 


Anastasis  :  or  the  Doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  of  the  Body,  rationally  and 
scripiurally  cotisidered*  By  George  Busb.  Professor  of  Hebrew,  New  York 
City  University.     New  York:  Wiley  and  Putnam.     1845. 

On  reading  this  work,  we  find  ourselves  obliged  to  confess  that  our  favor- 
able anticipations  of  it  have  not  been  realized.  The  novelty  of  its  theories 
evinces  a  mental  bravery  which  we  cannot  but  admire,  and  to  some  of  its 
conclusions  we  cordially  assent ;  but  we  are  convinced  that,  as  a  whole,  it 
presents  a  false  view  of  the  great  subject  which  it  undertakes  to  expound. 
We  shall  vindicate  this  opinion  of  its  merits,  not  by  sweeping,  declamatory 
censures,  but  by  '  sternly  interrogating'  its  specific  doctrines. 

The  negative  part  of  the  main  position  which  is  assumed  and  defended 
throughout  the  book,  is,  that '  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  not  a  doctrine 
of  revelation.'  Mr.  Bush  gives  no  quarter  to  such  rhapsodies  as  the  follow- 
ing from  Young's  '  Last  Day :' 

"  Now  monuments  prove  faitjiful  to  their  trust, 
And  render  back  their  long  committed  dust ; 
Now  charnels  rattle  ;  scattered  limbs,  and  all 
The  various  bones,  obsequious  to  the  call, 
Self.moved  advance ;  the  neck  perhaps  to  meet 
The  distant  head ;  the  distant  head  the  feet. 
Dreadful  to  view,  see,  through  the  dusky  sky, 
Fragments  of  bodies  in  confusion  fly  ; 
To  distant  regions  journeying,  there  to  claim 
Deserted  members  and  complete  the  frame." 

We  borrow  the  following  sketch  of  Mr.  B's  j9M(9S(?pAzV«Z  argument  against 
the  popular  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  from  a  notice  of  his  work 
in  '  The  New  World:' — "Assuming  this  to  be,  in  some  sense  or  other,  the 
positive  creed  of  Christendom,  Prof.  B.  enters  upon  the  consideration  of  it 
first  upon  physiological  grounds,  and  aims  to  show  that  the  admitted  fact  of 
the  constant  flux  of  particles  in  our  present  bodies  throws  an  insuperable  bar 
in  the  way  of  the  resurrection  of  the  same  bodies,  inasmuch  as  the  very  idea 
of  sameness  is  precluded  by  the  evanescent  nature  of  the  subject.  The  con- 
ceded fact,  moreover,  that  the  constituent  elements  of  our  bodies  are  inces- 


352  BUSH  ON  the  resurrection. 

santl J  passing  into  new  and  multifarious  combinations,  animal  and  vegetable, 
presents  another  objection  which,  he  affirms,  though  often  urged,  has  never 
been  answered.  The  difficulty  lies  in  establishing  a  conceivable  relation  be- 
tween the  body  that  dies  and  the  body  that  is  raised.  This,  he  maintains, 
on  the  common  view  is  impossible,  without  the  actual  re-gathering  and  re-con- 
struction of  the  dispersed  relics  of  the  original  structure  ;  and  this,  if  it  were 
effected,  would  constitute  a  material  and  not  a  spiritual  body,  which  revela- 
tion affirms  to  be  the  body  of  the  resurrection.  This  point  is  argued  with 
the  greatest  acuteness  and  ingenuity." 

In  the  following  extracts  w^e  present  the  strongest  point  of  Mr.  B's  scrip- 
tural argument  on  the  same  subject.  In  his  comments  on  Paul's  comparison 
of  the  resurrection  to  the  growth  of  plants,  in  1  Cor.  15:  35 — 37,  he  says : 

«  We  have  here  and  in  the  sequel  the  most  full,  explicit,  and  systematic  discus- 
sion of  the  general  subject  of  the  resurrection,  any  where  to  be  found  in  the 
scriptures  ;  and  whatever  else  may  be  taught  by  it,  we  think  nothing  can  be 
more  unequivocally  asserted,  than  that  man  does  not  rise  again  with  the  same 
body  which  he  had  in  this  world.  ***** 

"The  grand  inquiry  evidently  is,  to  ascertain  ihQ 'precise 'point  of  the  analogy 
in  the  two  cases,  [i.  e.  of  vegetation  and  the  resurrection,]  There  is,  in  the 
first  place,  a  coincidence  in  the  fact  o{  dying.  In  both  cases  there  is  that  pro- 
cess of  decay  and  dissolution  which  wo  denominate  death.  In  the  grain  the  mass 
of  the  farinaceous  parts,  except  so  much  as  may  be  necessary  to  the  sustentation 
of  the  future  plant  in  its  earlier  stages,  dies.  And  so  the  human  body  undergoes 
a  similar  process  sf  dissolution.  Yet  here  we  must  aim  at  precision  ofideaai, 
and  note  the  points  of  difference  as  well  as  of  similitude.  The  '  dying,'  which 
the  apostle  predicates  of  the  seed,  takes  place  subsequently  to  the  sowing.  But 
the  human  body  does  not  die  after  it  is  deposited  in  the  dust.  It  is  previously 
dead — '  for  the  body  without  the  spirit  is  dead,' — and  therefore  cannot  die  again. 
That  which  is  absolutely  dead  cannot  be  more  dead.  Still  there  are  items  of 
agreement  sufficient  to  form  a  basis  for  the  comparison,  v/hich  will  appear  as  we 
proceed.  As  there  is  something  in  the  plant  which  dies,  so  there  is  also  some- 
thing which  does  not  die.  There  is  an  enfolded  germ,  in  which  the  essential 
vitality  of  the  seed  is  concentrated,  and  if  this  dies,  it  does  not  germinate,  and 
of  course  no  plant  springs  up.  We  cannot,  of  course,  suppose  that  the  apostle 
intended  to  say  that  this  embryo  died,  although  this  is  the  very  point  of  Thomas 
Paine's  railing  accusation  against  the  scripture  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  and 
on  the  ground  of  which  he  calls  St.  Paul  a  fool ;  contending  that,  if  the  the  seed 
really  and  literally  died,  no  plant  would  grow,  which  is  indeed  true.  But  this 
evidently  is  not  the  apostle's  meaning ;  and  if  the  scepfic  had  ever  put  his  hand 
into  a  hill  of  young  potatoes,  he  might  have  found  to  his  discomfort,  that  there 
was  such  a  thing  as  vegetable  life  and  death  going  on  together  ;  and  such  a  pen- 
ance or  penalty,  would  not  perhaps  have  been  very  inappropriate  to  such  paltry 
and  contemptible  cavilling. 

"  We  see,  then,  very  clearly,  the  law  of  vegetable  reproduction.  The  new 
plant  arises  from  the  development  of  a  germ  in  the  old  one.  The  vitality  of  the 
seed  adheres  to  the  germ,  and  passes  with  it  into  the  new  organization  which 
succeeds  ;  and  with  the  vitality  coexists  the  identity  of  the  plant.  So  it  is  that 
we  sow  not  the  body  which  shall  be.  We  sow  a  grain  of  wheat,  and  what  is  it 
that  comes  up  1  Not  the  grain  of  wheat,  but  a  blade  of  grass.  It  eventuates,  in- 
deed, in  a  head  of  wheat  similar  to  that  which  is  sown.     But  this  is  not  the 


BUSH   ON   THE   RESURRECTION.  853 

point  of  the  apostle's  argument.  His  reasoning,  so  to  speak,  does  not  rise  above 
the  surface  of  the  ground.  He  designs  to  show  that  that  product  which  springs 
out  of  the  enrth,  and  appears  on  its  bosom,  is  something  different  from  that  which 
is  put  into  the  soil.  If  we  call  this  the  resurrection  of  the  seed,  it  is  perfectly 
obvious  that  the  term  resurrection,  in  this  connection,  does  not  imply  the  re- 
appearance of  tlie  same  material  mass,  the  same  aggregation  of  particles,  which 
was  deposited  in  the  earth  ;  for  the  mass,  with  the  exception  of  the  germ,  dies — 
that  is,  is  resolved  into  dust  and  its  various  constituent  elements. 

"Now,  if  this  process  is  made  use  of  by  the  apostle  to  illustrate  the  resurrection 
of  the  human  body,  we  do  not  see  but  we  must  be  forced  to  the  admission  of  some 
kind  of  germ  which  is  developed  from  the  one  that  is  the  nucleus — the  essential 
vital  principle — of  the  other,  it  will  soon  appear,  indeed,  that  it  is  a  germ  of  a 
very  peculiar  nature,  but  still  that  there  is  something  to  be  developed  from  the 
dead  body.  If  not,  how  does  the  illustration  apply  ?  What  is  the  point  of  com- 
parison ?  But  if  there  be  this  embryo  principle,  is  it  m«^en"aZ  ? — is  it  of  the 
same  nature  with  the  gross  fabric  from  which  it  is  developed  ?  This,  it  will  be 
perceived,  is  the  grand  question.  The  ancient  Jews  held  that  it  was.  They 
contended  that  there  was  an  immortal  bone  in  the  human  body  (called  by  them 
Luz — ossiculum  Luz)  which  is  the  germ  of  the  resurrection-body.  This  bone, 
they  held,  one  might  burn,  boil,  bake,  pound,  bruise,  or  attempt  to  bruise,  by  put- 
ting it  on  the  anvil  and  submitting  it  to  the  strokes  of  the  sledge  hammer,  but  all 
in  vain.  No  effect  would  be  produced  upon  it.  It  was  indestructible — incor- 
ruptible— immortal.  This  bone  was  the  seed  of  the  future  body.  And  this  is, 
in  fact,  though  not  in  terms,  the  theory  embraced  by  Drew  in  his  work  on  the 
resurrection.  But  as  the  most  accurate  researches  of  physiologists  have  failed 
to  discover  any  such  bone  in  the  system,  and  as  the  process  of  burning  leaves  no 
such  residuum  of  the  corporeal  structure,  we  are  doubtless  at  liberty  to  set  it 
down  among  the  thousand  and  one  idle  dreams  of  Rabbinical  fiction,  and  put  it 
on  the  same  shelf  with  the  silly  tradition  of  the  Talmudical  doctors,  that  at  the 
resurrection,  the  bodies  of  the  Jews,  in  whatever  part  of  the  world  they  died, 
will  be  rolled  or  transported  under  ground,  through  secret  passages,  and  all  emerge 
to  the  light  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  with  those  of  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  the 
other  patriarchs, 

"Still  there  is  undoubtedly  a  strong  disposition  among  many  good  men  to  adhere 
to  this  idea  of  a  corj)oreal  or  material  germ  to  be  in  some  way  developed  from  the 
old  body,  and  constituting  the  nucleus  of  the  new  one.  But  if  this  be  so,  what 
and  whore  is  it  ?  What  becomes  of  it  when  the  body  is  burnt  to  ashes,  and 
these  ashes  dissipated  to  the  four  winds  ?  Is  there  any  evidence  that  can  satisfy 
an  intelligent  mind  of  the  fact  of  such  a  latent  material  germ  in  the  human  body, 
answering  to  the  enfolded  embryo  of  the  future  plant  ?  And  if  there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  this,  on  what  grounds  do  we  hold  it? 

"  But  it  will  be  said,  if  the  apostle's  analogy  does  not  teach  this,  what  does  it 
teach  ?  If  the  fair  construction  of  his  language  does  not  imply  that  there  is  some- 
thing developed  out  of  the  dead  body  which  forms  the  link  of  connextion  between 
it  and  the  resurrection. body,  then  it  would  be  hard  to  show  that  it  teaches  any 
thing  on  the  subject,  an  alternative  to  which,  with  the  qualifications  and  explan- 
ations  that  follow,  we  readily  subscribe.  We  cannot  understand  the  apostle's 
reasoning,  unless  he  means  to  affirm  that  there  is  something  of  the  nature  of  a 
germ  which  emanates  from  the  defunct  body,  and  forms  either  the  substance  or 
the  nucleus  of  the  future  resurrection-body.  But  this  principle  we  contend  to  be 
what  the  apostle  calls  spiritual,  that  is,  invisible,  impalpable,  refined,  etheriai— 
44 


854  fitJSH   01^  THE  REStRRECTlOl*?. 

something  that  is  essentially  connected  with  vital  operations — something  that  isi 
exhaled  with  the  dying  breath,  or,  in  other  words,  that  goes  forth  from  the  body 
before  zt  is  consigned  to  the  dust — for,  after  the  body  has  mouldered  away  in  the 
grave,  we  perceive  not  how  any  germ  or  embryo  is  ever  to  emanate  from  it.  It 
is  a  something,  of  the  interior  nature  of  which  all  the  philosophers  in  the  world 
know  just  as  much  as  our  readers,  and  no  more.  At  the  same  time  this  igno- 
tance  does  not  stand  in  the  way  of  the  fact.  And  if  this  alleged  fact  be  not  ad- 
mitted^  what  is  ?  What  will  any  man  aflirm  to  be  the  real  point  of  the  apostle's 
comparison  ?  If  there  is  some  gross  material  link  of  connexion  between  the 
soul's  present  and  future  tenement,  what  is  it  ?  Let  it  be  ^inted  out,  and  let  it 
be  shown  too  that  a  vitalizing  power  is  connected  with  it.  For  ourselves,  we 
confess  it  completely  baffles  our  comprehension,  and  if  any  one  cap  enlighten  our 
darkness  on  the  subject — if  he  will  show  us  that  there  is  any  other  than  a  spirit* 
Hal  germ  evolved  from  the  defunct  body--=we  will  sit  at  his  feet  with  the  glad 
docility  of  a  learner  who  hungers  and  thirsts  for  instruction  more  than  for  his 
necessary  food.  With  our  present  light  we  must  believe  that  the  only  germ  in 
the  human  bod^'  answering  to  the  germ  in  the  plant,  and  upon  which  the  apos- 
tle's comparison  is  built,  is  the  spiritual  body  itself. ^^  p,  174-179. 

We  hardly  need  say  that  we  agree  with  Mr.  B.  thus  far  most  heartily. 
We  have  long  argued  as  he  does,  from  reason  and  from  scripture,  (at  least 
so  far  as  the  15th  of  Corinthians  is  concerned,)  against  the  notion  of  a  res- 
urrection of  that  body  which  dies.  And  we  are  not  sure  but  that  his  doctrine 
in  relation  to  the  nature  of  the  body  which  is  raised,  is  identical  with  ours. 
We  see  nothing  in  the  above  extracts  at  variance  with  the  following  view 
"Which  we  presented  in  the  Perfectionist,  Yol.  III.  No.  2 : — 

*'  Let  us  suppose  that  our  mortal  bodies  are  compounded  of  two  substances^ 
Oiie  of  them  visible,  and  the  other  invisible.  The  visible  is  but  the  shell  or 
garment  of  the  invisible j  like  the  outside  case  of  an  English  watch.  We 
must  not  confound  the  inner  substance  with  the  soul^  but  consider  it  a  real 
body  corresponding  in  shape  and  function  to  the  visible  body,  and  in  fact  visi-* 
ble  itself  to  spiritual  eyes*  We  know  that  sensation  does  not  pertain  to  mere 
dead  m.atter ;  and  yet  the  susceptibility  to  sensation  exists  in  every  part  of 
our  body*  Now  let  the  reader  conceive  of  that  substance  which  feels  physi- 
cal impressions,  as  separate  from  the  visible  matter  with  which  it  is  interwo* 
ven,  and  he  will  have  our  idea  of  what  we  call  the  inner  body.  Adopting 
this  supposition,  what  difficulty  is  there  in  conceiving  that  while  the  visible 
part  of  the  body^  at  death^  dissolves  and  is  scattered,  never  to  be  re-organ- 
ized, the  invisible,  and  in  fact  the  only  vital  and  essential  part  of  the  body 
retains  its  organization  and  identity.*' 

We  suppose  that  Mr.  B's  '  spiritual  germ'  is  the  same  thing  as  that  which 
We  call  the  '  inner  body.*  So  far  then  we  agree  with  him,  viz.  that  there  is 
to  be  no  resurrection  of  the  body  which  sees  corruption  ;  and  that  the  body 
which  is  to  be  raised  is  a  spiritual  body,  which,  though  invisible,  exists  in  the 
visible  body  before  death. 

The  next  question  is,  What  is  the  nature  of  that  change  which  places  this 
hody  in  the  resurrection  state  ?  We  confess  we  have  had  much  difficulty  in 
ascertaining  Mr.  B's  answer  to  this  question,  not  because  his  language  in  the 
Beveral  passages  relating  to  it  is  obscure,  but  because  some  of  those  passages 


BUSH   OX  THE   RESURRECTIOIf.  355 

seem  to  contradict  others.  We  are  safe  however  in  saying  that  his  prevailing 
doctrine  is  that  the  change  which  constitutes  the  resurrection  of  the  spiritual 
body  takes  place  at  the  death  of  the  material  body,  and  is  the  natural  and 
necessary  result  of  the  disengagement  of  the  immortal  germ  from  its  earthly 
tenement.  Our  readers  will  judge  whether  this  is  not  a  true  representation 
.of  his  views,  from  the  following  extracts : 

"  It  will  have  be'en  seen,  from  the  tenor  of  the  preceding  pages,  that  the  argu- 
ment from  reason  leads  by  fair  and  unforced  inference  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  the  doctrine  of  the  developement  of  a  spiritual 
body  at  death  from  the  bodies  which  we  now  inhabit,  p.  '^4. 

"  On  this  view  the  resurrection  takes  place  when  the  spiritual  body  leaves  the 
material,  which,  as  before  remarked,  we  believe  to  be  the  true  doctrine,  p.  109, 

"The  position  is  impregnable,  that  the  prevailing  sense  o^ resurrection  in  the 
New  Testament  is  simply  that  o^ future  existence,  the  future  state  or  immortality. 
The  person — the  sentient  intelligent  being — who  now  yields  to  the  universal  sen- 
tence, and  appears  to  become  extinct,  shall  again  be  restored  to  life  by  entering 
upon  another  sphere  of  existence,  p.  145. 

"Is  the  resurrection  body  assumed  at  once,  or  does  a  long  interval  of  time 
elapse  before  that  event  occurs?  If  the  theory  of  a  gross  material  germ  were  ot  be 
assumed  as  the  true  one,  we  can  perceivethat  there  would  be  nothing  in  ti|p  nature 
of  the  ease  to  forbid  the  idea  of  a  long  interval  intervening  before  it  should  be 
quickened  into  its  ultimate  formation,  The  vital  power  of  seeds  often  remains 
dormant  for  an  immensely  long  period  ;  and  so  it  might  be  in  regard  to  the  germ 
of  a  human  body,  provided  we  could  have  evidoice  that  any  such  germ  existed, 
and  that  a  vital  energy  was  associated  with  it.  But  here  is  the  precise  point  of 
the  difficulty.  We  see  no  adequate  grounds  for  believing  that  such  a  staminal 
principle,  material  in  its  qualities,  exists :  and  till  this  is  shown,  we  are  relieved 
of  the  necessity  of  any  other  reference  to  the  theory,  than  to  demand  of  those 
who  hold  it  to  answer  this  fair  interrogatory  :  If  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
which  is  deposited  in  the  eai  th,  depends  on  the  developement  of  a  corporeal  germ, 
which  no  process  of  reasoning  or  experiment  can  show  to  exist,  and  the  body  itself 
rs  resolved  back  to  its  original  elements,  then  on  what  basis  rests  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  of  that  body — the  tabernacle  which  we  have  inhabited  on  earth  T 
It  will  not  do  to  say  that  God  can  rebuild  the  original  fabric,  for  this  contradicts 
and  makes  useless  the  doctrine  of  the  material  germ. 

"  We  are  inevitably  thrown  back,  then,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  on  the  theory,  so 
to  term  it,  of  the  immediate  developement  and  assumption  of  the  spiritual  body, 
and  its  entrance  at  once  upon  the  resurrection  state.  We  know  not  how  to  con- 
ceive of  a  pause — a  long  suspension — in  the  essential  activity  of  the  vital  princi- 
ple with  which  thought  and  consciousness  are  connected.  We  are  not,  we  pre- 
sume, addressing  those  who  believe  in  the  sleep  of  the  soul  after  death,  but  those 
who  expect  to  retain  their  conscious  existence  in  the  world  of  spirits.  Anc^if 
our  intelligent  principle  goes  with  the  vital,  which  depends  upon  various  hidden 
ethereal  agencies  constantly  operating  around  us,  why  shall  we  not  infer  that 
our  spiritual  mode  of  being  commences  at  once  upon  the  abandonment  of  our 
gross  corruptible  tenements?  p,  180. 

"Are  we  not  justified  in  maintaining,  that  the  only  resurrection  of  the  dead 
ever  to  be  experienced  by  man,  is  that  of  whicii  these  patriarchs  [spoken  of  in 
Matt,  22:  31,  32]  have  long  since  been  the  subjects?  Is  there  more  than  one 
kind  of  resurrection  ?    Does  not  our  Lord's  language  establish  this  as  the  gen* 


S56  BUSH   ON   THE   RESURRECTION, 

nine  and  legitimate  sense  of  the  term?  Is  it  not  exactly  tantamount  to  future 
state  ?  p,  208. 

"  So  far  as  we  are  competent  to  form  a  judgment,  the  evidence  from  reason 
prejmnderates  in  favor  of  the  idea  of  the  immediate  entrance  at  death  upon  the 
resurrection-state,     p.  237. 

*'  The  resurrection  and  the  judgment  actually  resolve  themselves  into  a  law  of 
our  nature  ;  our  physical,  psychical  and  moral  constitution  is  such  that  we  really 
and  neci'ssarily  rise  at  death  into  the  true  resurrection."     p.  345. 

We  will  now  show  that  INIr.  B.  himself  contradicts  and  subverts  the  doc- 
trine of  the  above  extracts. 

1.  The  reader  will  perceive  that,  in  one  case  at  least,  he  represents  the 
New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  as  simply  that  of  a  future  exist- 
ence. It  is  not  therefore  without  some  inconsistency,  that  in  other  cases  he 
brings  into  his  definition  the  accessory  idea  of  the  development  of  the  spirit- 
ual body,  unless  he  assumes  that  the  existence  of  the  person  is  inseparable 
from  the  spiritual  body.  But  leaving  this  difficulty,  and  admitting  his  com- 
pound definition  of  the  resurrection,  viz. ,  that  it  is  a  future  existence  in  a 
spiritual  body,  it  is  evident  that  the  wicked,  as  w^ell  as  the  righteous,  enter 
upon  a  resurrection  in  this  sense  at  death.  He  admits  the  future  existence 
of  the  Avisked,  and  their  existence  in  spiritual  bodies,  i.  e.  their  resurrection 
according  to  the  above  definition.  And  yet  he  teaches  throughout  his  book 
that  the  resurrection  is  not  predicated  of  the  wicked  at  all ! — and  in  his  zeal 
for  the  estabhshment  of  this  position,  he  explains  away,  by  means  which  none 
but  those  who  are  deeply  versed  in  the  art  of  special  pleading  can  conceive 
of,  all  such  texts  as  the  following  :  '  Many  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth 
shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  con- 
tempt,^— '  All  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth ; 
they  that  have  done  good  unto  the  resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have 
done  evil  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation.^ — '  There  shall  be  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  the  unjust.'*  Now  if  he  adheres  to 
this  part  of  his  doctrine,  viz.  the  denial  of  a  resurrection  to  the  Avicked', 
then  his  previous  doctrine,  viz.  that  the  idea  of  a  resurrection  is  simply  that 
of  a  future  existence  in  a  spiritual  body,  is  subverted.  Another  ingredient 
must  be  added  to  the  compound  by  which  he  defines  the  resurrection.  He 
must  say  that  it  is  the  future  existence  of  the  righteous  in  spiritual  bodies. 
Since  existence  after  death,  and  the  development  of  spiritual  bodies  are 
equally  predicable  of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  if  the  wicked,  as  Mr.  B. 
holds,  are  not  subjects  of  the  resurrection,  then  the  essence  of  the  resur- 
rection Hes  not  in  a  future  existence,  nor  in  the  development  of  spiritual 
bodies,  as  the  above  extracts  teach,  but  in  that  spiritual  life  which  dis- 
tinguishes the  righteous  and  the  wicked. 

Much  of  this  confusion  results  from  the  theory  which  Mr.  B.  assumes  and 
•attempts  to  establish  at  the  outset  of  his  biblical  argument,  that  there  is  but 
one  kind  of  anastasis  or  resurrection  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
that  that  is  the  resurrection  which  is  simply  opposed  to  the  Sadducean  notion 
of  future  non-existence.  He  begins  with  deducing  his  definition  of  anastasis 
from  those  passages  in  which  that  word  is  manifestly  used  in  its  lowest  and 


BUSH   ON   THE   RESURRECTION.  357 

most  general  sense,  as  a  resurrection  or  a  standing  up  from  annihilation^ 
such  as  Matt.  22:  31,  32,  (where  Christ  proves  that  there  is  a  resurrection, 
from  the  fact  that  the  patriarchs  were  aUve,)  and  ICor.  15:  12,  &c.,  (where 
Paul  is  manifestly  arguing  against  those  who  think  that  the  dead  cease  to 
exist,)  and  then  assumes  that  this  is  the  only  sense  of  the  word,  so  far  at 
least  that  he  altogether  neglects  to  recognize  any  other.  Indeed  he  asks  in 
one  of  the  preceding  extracts,  as  triumphantly  as  though  a  negative  answer 
were  out  of  the  question,  "Are  we  not  justified  in  maintaining,  that  the  only 
resurrection  of  the  dead  ever  to  be  experienced  by  man,  is  that  of  which 
these  patriarchs  have  long  since  been  the  subjects  ?  Is  there  more  than  one 
kind  of  resurrection  ?"  We  answer.  Most  certainly  there  is  more  than  one 
or  two  kinds  of  resurrection  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament.  As  an  un- 
questionable instance  of  the  use  of  the  word  anastasis  in  two  senses  in  the 
same  passage,  we  may  cite  Heb.  11:  35.  '  Women  received  their  dead 
raised  to  life  again,  [^ex  anastaseos^  and  others  were  tortured,  not  accepting 
dehverance,  that  they  might  obtain  a  better  resurrection,'  [ajiastaseos.']  In 
the  first  case  anastasis  means  a  resurrection  from  the  disembodied  state  to 
animal  life,  and  in  the  second  it  refers  to  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous 
after  death  to  a  state  of  happiness.  This  instance  alone  clears  the  field  of 
Mr.  B's  assumption,  and  we  may  now  take  the  liberty  to  propose  a  different 
view  of  the  word  in  question.  Anastasis,  as  Mr.  B.  says,  properly  means  a 
standing  up.  Of  course  it  may  be  used  in  as  many  different  senses,  as  there 
are  states  which  men  may  be  said  to  stand  vi^from.  It  is  used  in  the  New 
Testament  in  at  least  the  six  following  ways.  1.  It  is  a  standing  up  from 
non-existence,  as  in  Matt.  22:  31,  32,  and  1  Cor.  15:  12.  In  this  sense  the 
wicked,  as  well  as  the  righteous,  stand  up  after  death  ;  and  if  Matt.  22:  31, 
32  proves  that  the  patriarchs  were  in  the  ultimate  resurrection  when  Moses 
wrote,  then  according  to  Mr  B's  own  theory  the  wicked  also  were  in  the  same 
resurrection,  for  they  were  in  existence,  and  that  is  all  he  professes  to  infer 
from  the  language  of  Moses  concerning  the  patriarchs.  2.  Anastasis  is  a 
standing  up  from  Hades,  i.  e.  a  return  from  the  world  of  spirits  into  the  an- 
imal body.  It  is  used  in  this  sense  whenever  it  occurs  in  connexion  with  cases 
of  visible  resurrection,  such  as  those  of  the  widow's  son,  Lazarus,  the  damsel 
that  was  raised,  &c.  Anastasis  (or  some  equivalent  word)  is  used  in  a 
variety  of  instances  as  it  is  used  in  Heb.  11:  35.  This  is  certainly  a  very 
different  standing  up  from  that  of  the  patriarchs.  3.  Anastasis  is  a  stand- 
ing  up  from  both  Hades  and  the  mortal  state.  It  is  used  in  this  sense  when- 
ever it  is  applied  to  Christ's  resurrection.  He  arose  out  of  Hades  and  in 
this  respect  his  resurrection  was  like  that  of  Lazarus,  and  others  that  were 
raised  previously.  But  he  did  not  continue  in  his  animal  body  as  they  did  ; 
he  assumed  the  immortal  body,  and  ascended  to  the  presence  of  God.  This, 
so  far  as  objective  changes  are  concerned,  is  the  model  of  the  universal  res- 
urrection. The  just  and  the  unjust  must  come  up  from  Hades,  and  from  the 
mortal  state,  in  immortal  bodies,  and  appear  before  God.  (See  Rev.  20:  12, 
13.)  4.  Anastasis  is  sometimes  used  with  exclusive  reference  to  the  resur- 
rection of  the  just,  as  in  Luke  20:  35,  and  then,  in  addition  to  the  idea  of 
ascension  from  Hades  and  the  mortal  state,  in  the  immortal  body  to  the  pres- 
ence of  God,,  which  belongs  to  the  general  resurrection,  it  has  the  accessory 


358 


BUSH   ON   THE   RESURRECTION. 


idea  of  a  permanent  happy  existence  in  the  presence  of  Grod — i.  e.  it  is  a 
stcmdiJig  up  from  Hades ^  mortality^  and  the  second  death.  5.  Anastasis 
is  sometimes  used  with  particular  reference  to  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked, 
as  in  John  5:  29,  and  then,  it  is  a  standing  up  from  Hades  and  mortality 
into  condemnation  and  the  final  lake  of  fire.  6.  Behevers  in  this  world  are 
represented  as  being  in  a  kind  of  anastasis — '  risen  with  Christ.'  (See  Rom. 
6:  5,  Col.  3:  1.)  This  is  a  standing  up  from  sin  and  spiritual  death — an 
incipient  operation  of  the  power  which  shall  ultimately  raise  them  out  of 
Hades,  mortality,  and  final  condemnation. 

Now  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  that  Mr.  Bush,  after  crushing  all  these  kinds 
of  resurrection  into  one,  and  that  the  lowest  in  importance,  viz.  the  anastasis 
of  the  patriarchs,  and  after  discoursing  about  this  as  '  the  resurrection,'  '  the 
true  doctrine  of  resurrection,'  &c.,  should  find  himself  involved  at  last  in  many 
and  great  absurdities.  We  expect  to  show  before  we  have  done,  that  the 
self-contradiction  noticed  above  is  among  the  least  of  these  absurdities. 

2.  If  the  true  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  simply  that  of  a  future  exis- 
tence in  spiritual  bodies,  as  Mr.  Bush  again  and  again  affirms  or  intimates, 
then  it  is  obvious  that  the  resurrection  necessarily  takes  place  in  all  cases  at 
death,  and  no  room  is  left  for  the  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  state  either  be- 
fore or  since  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  This  is  the  prevailing  doctrine  of  the 
book  before  us.  That  the  reader  may  be  sure  we  do  not  misrepresent  it,  we 
call  attention  again  to  the  last  of  the  foregoing  citations  : 

"The  resurrection  and  the  judgment  actually  resolve  themselves  into  a  law  of 
our  nature ;  our  physical,  psychical,  and  moral  constitution  is  such,  that  we 
really  and  necessarily  rise  at  death  into  the  true  resurrection."  jp.  345. 

If  the  resurrection  is  a  '  law  of  our  nature,'  it  is  a  law  of  human  nature, 
and  took  effect  as  well  in  Adam's  day  as  in  ours.  If  we  '  really  and  necessa- 
rily rise  at  death  into  the  true  resurrection,'  the  Old  Testament  saints  cer- 
tainly did  the  sam.e.  Now  let  the  reader  compare  the  following  concession 
(which  occurs  in  a  note  on  the  22oth  page  of  Mr.  B's  book)  with  the  above 
doctrine,  and  see  if  there  is  any  possibility  of  keeping  them  from  flatly  con- 
tradicting each  other  : 

"  It  seems  capable  of  proof,  that  the  state  from  which  the  expectant  souls  of 
the  Old  Testament  saints  were  delivered  by  Christ,  is  the  state  of  which  the 
term  Paradise  is  more  properly  to  be  understood,  as  a  state  of  real  but  imperfect 
happiness.  Accordingly,  we  see  in  this  the  ground  of  our  Savior's  assurance  to 
the  dying  thief,  that  he  should  that  day  be  with  him  in  paradise  ;  not  in  heaven, 
to  which  it  does  not  appear  that  he  ascended  till  after  his  resurrection.  This 
would  bring  the  dying  thief  into  the  train  of  the  ascending  Savior ;  and  it  does 
not  seem  probable  that  he  would  promise  him  an  entrance  into  heaven  before  he 
entered  there  himself. 

"On  the  view  here  exhibited,  the  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  state,  subse- 
quent to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  must  be  considered  to  vanish  quite  away. 
The  sentiments  of  the  primitive  Christian  fathers  on  that  subject,  appear  to  have 
been  based  upon  scriptural  intimations  which  have  respect  only  to  those  who 
lived  under  the  former  dispensation.  To  them  there  was  indeed  an  intermediate 
state  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  i.  e.  the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  but 
we  are  unable  to  perceive  upon  what  grounds  such  a  state  can  be  maintained  in 
reference  to  the  saints  of  the  New  Testament  era." 


BtSH   ON  THE  RESURRECTION.  '  359 

The  first  sentence  of  the  second  paragraph  in  this  passage  is  really  curious, 
if  it  is  considered  that  the  whole  drift  of  Mr.  B's  argument,  rational  and  exe- 
getical,  in  the  rest  of  his  book,  is  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  an  intermediate 
state  altogether.  We  would  substitute  for  that  sentence,  the  following :  '  On 
the  view  here  exhibited,  the  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  state,  previous 
to  the  resurrection  of  Christy  must  be  considered  to  be  fully  admitted.'  We 
are  taught  by  Mr.  B.  himself,  that  the  Old  Testament  saints  (including  of 
course  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  whose  resurrection  is  elsewhere  constantly 
assumed,  and  is  in  fact  the  basis  of  a  great  part  of  his  doctrine,)  were,  till 
the  resurrection  of  Christ,  m  an  '  expectant  state,'  a  state  of  '  imperfect  hap- 
piness,' '  not  in  heaven,'  but  in  that '  paradise'  where  the  thief  went  on  the 
day  of  his  death,  and  where  Christ  was  in  the  interval  between  his  death  and 
his  resurrection.  In  other  words,  we  are  taught  by  the  same  man  who  insists 
that  the  true  resurrection  is  a  '  law  of  nature,'  and  necessarily  takes  place  in 
all  cases  at  death,  that  there  was  no  true  resurrection  of  the  Old  Testament 
saints  till  the  advent  of  Christ !  If  it  had  been  necessary  we  should  have  an- 
swerered  Mr.  Bush's  general  theory,  by  proving  this  very  doctrine  of  an  in- 
termediate state.  He  has  saved  us  the  trouble.  The  confusions  and  contrar 
dictions  which  crowd  upon  the  mind  in  view  of  the  clashing  doctrines  which 
Mr.  B.  teaches,  are  so  stupendous  that  we  shrink  from  meddling  Avith  their 
details,  and  gladly  leave  them  to  the  ponderings  of  our  readers. 

Mr.  Bush's  concession  allows  us  to  assume  that  the  Old  Testament  saints 
remained  in  Hades,  and  of  course  that  there  was  no  resurrection  in  the  most 
important  sense  of  that  word,  till  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  This  as- 
sumption leads  directly  to  the  inquiry — At  what  time  did  the  resurrection 
of  those  expectant  souls  take  place  ?  Mr.  B's  prevailing  doctrine  is,  that 
the  true  and  only  resurrection  takes  place  at  the  death  of  each  individual. 
Of  course  he  has  little  to  say  about  any  particular  crisis  of  simultaneous 
resurrection,  except  to  show  that  he  thinks  the  idea  is  unfounded.  But,  as 
we  adopt  his  incidental  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  state,  and  not  his  prevail- 
ing theory,  we  account  it  a  matter  of  importance  to  ascertain  definitely  when 
the  intermediate  state  of  the  Old  Testament  saints  ended. 

The  passage  which  first  claims  our  attention  in  this  inquiry  is  Dan.  12:  2, 
*-*'  Many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to 
everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.'  It  will  be 
recollected  by  those  who  have  read  our  criticism  of  Mr.  Bush's  interpretation 
of  this  passage,  in  The  Perfectionist,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  6,  that  his  doctrine  was 
that  it  does  not  refer  to  a  literal  resurrection,  but  to  a  '  symbolical  revives- 
cence,'  i.  e.,  i\iQ  future  conversion,  of  the  Jews.  In  reply  to  this,  we  pointed 
to  the  fact  that  the  resurrection  in  question  manifestly  stands  in  close  connec- 
tion with  '  a  time  of  trouble  such  as  never  was,'  (see  ver.  1,)  and  insisted 
that,  as  the  period  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  expressly  characterized 
by  Christ  in  Matt.  24:  21  as  such  a  time, — and  as  two  such  times  are  impos- 
sible,— the  resurrection  of '  many'  must  have  taken  place  in  connection  with 
that  catastrophe.  Mr.  Bush  in  his  present  work  concedes  all  this,  and  of 
course  abandons  his  former  special  application  of  the  text  to  the  future  con- 
version of  the  Jews.     He  also  admits  that  it  refers  primarily  to  a  literal 


860  BUSH   ON  THE  RESURRECTION. 

resurrection.  So  far  he  has  advanced.  But  now  he  teaches  that  it  refers 
to  the  resurrection  of  those  saints  that  'came  out  of  their  graves  and  appeared 
to  many'  immediately  after  Christ's  resurrection.  See  Matt.  27:  52.  He 
thinks  this  event  stands  near  enough  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  to  have 
been  regarded  as  synchronical  from  the  prophet's  point  of  view.  This  inter- 
pretation is  a  little  more  plausible  than  the  former,  but  still  is  liable  to  fatal 
objections.  In  the  first  place  it  is  improbable,  on  the  face  of  the  case,  that 
an  inspired  oracle,  after  speaking  of '  a  time  of  trouble,'  should  affirm  that  a 
resurrection  should  occur  'at  that  time'  (see  ver.  1)  which,  in  fact,  was  to 
take  place  forty  years  before.  The  reader  will  observe  that  the  order  of  the 
annunciations  in  Dan.  12: 1,  2,  indicates  that  the  deliverance  and  resurrec- 
tion Avas  to  come  after ^  rather  than  before  the  '  time  of  trouble.'  *  Michael 
shall  stand  up,  .  .  .  there  shall  be  a  time  of  trouble  such  as  never  was,  .  .  . 
and  [as  an  accompaniment  or  an  immediate  sequel]  at  that  time  thy  people 
shall  be  delivered,  .  .  .  and  many  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall 
awake.'  Any  interpretation  that  places  the  resurrection  before  the  time  of 
trouble,  makes  this  language  very  unnatural ;  and  an  interpretation  that  inter- 
poses forty  years  between  the  two  events,  makes  it  totally  false. 

Again,  the  resurrection  immediately  connected  with  the  rising  of  Christ, 
was  a  resurrection  of  saints  only  ;  whereas  it  is  predicted  in  Daniel  that  at 
the  time  specified  some  should  awake  '  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame 
and  everlasting  contem.pt,'*  Mr.  B.  still  insists  on  changing  the  construction 
of  the  language,  by  substituting  'these'  and  'those'  for  'some''  and  'some^  so 
as  to  make  the  awakening  refer  only  to  the  saints,  leaving  the  Avicked  to  sleep 
to  everlasting  shame  and  contempt,  without  any  awakening.  We  still  insist 
that  the  change  of  words  which  he  proposes,  cannot  properly  make  any  change 
of  the  sense.  However  this  may  be,  we  find  in  Mr.  B's  present  work  a  con- 
cession which  places  the  authority  of  Christ  himself  on  the  side  of  the  com- 
mon view  of  the  passage,  viz.  that  view  which  attaches  the  awakening  to  the 
wicked  as  well  as  the  righteous.  In  his  remarks  on  John  5:  28,  29,  where 
Christ  announces  that  the  righteous  shall  come  forth  '  to  the  resurrection  of 
life,  and  they  that  have  done  evil  to  the  resurrection  of  damnation ^  Mr.  B. 
says — "  It  is  to  us  unquestionable  that  the  Savior  had  in  his  eye  [in  this  an- 
nunciation] the  oft-quoted  passage  of  Daniel  12:  2,  '  And  many  of  them  that 
sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some 
to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.'  The  phraseology  is  somewhat  varied,  but 
the  general  identity  of  import  is  obvious."  p.  239.  What  more  do  we  need  than 
this  admission,  to  prove  beyond  all  question  the  falsehood  of  Mr.  B's  criti- 
cism, and  establish  the  point  that  the  awaking  in  Dan.  12:  2  pertains  to  the 
wicked  as  well  as  the  righteous  ?  The  coming  forth  to  resurrection  in  Christ's 
annunciation,  corresponds  to  the  awaJdng  in  Daniel's  ;  and  Christ  expressly 
says  that  they  that  have  done  evil  shall  come  forth  to  the  resurrection  of  dam- 
nation; I.  e.  he  interprets  Daniel's  language  as  meaning  that  '  some  shall 
awahe  to  everlasting  shame  and  contem,pt.^  Will  Mr.  B.  take  the  ground 
that  Christ,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the  world,  misunderstood  the  passage,  and 
in  re-echoing  it,  gave  it  a  wrong  import  ?  If  we  understand  his  remarks  on 
John  5:  28,  29,  he  does  take  the  ground  that  Christ's  language  is  to  be  in- 


BUSH   ox  THE   RESURRECTION.  361 

terpreted  by  reference  to  Dan.  12:  2  ;  and  then  assuming  that  his  criticism 
has  ejected  from  the  latter  passage  all  reference  to  a  resurrection  of  the  -wicked, 
he  proceeds  to  cut  the  former  by  the  measure  he  has  thus  prepared,  i.  e.  he 
shaves  olf  'the  resurrection  of  damnation'  as  an  illegitimate  excrescence!  Here 
are  two  confessedly  parallel  texts  ;  one  is  from  the  mouth  of  Christ,  is  per- 
fectly lucid  in  its  language,  and  taken  by  itself,  unquestionably  teaches  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked  ;  the  other  is  from  the  mouth  of 
Daniel,  and  its  language,  though  so  plain  as  to  have  been  generally  understood 
as  teaching  the  same  doctrine,  may  be  conceded  to  be  doubtful.  In  this  state 
of  the  case,  Mr.  Bush  attaches  his  own  peculiar  construction  to  the  doubtful 
text,  and  then  argues  from  that  construction  against  the  manifest  meaning  of 
the  other !  He  reverses  the  laws  of  hermeneutics,  and  reasons  from  things 
uncertain  against  things  certain !  Instead  of  allowing  Christ  to  interpret 
Daniel,  he  first  interprets  Daniel  himself,  and  then  makes  Daniel  correct  the 
language  of  Christ !  The  true  method  of  reasoning  in  the  case  is  this  :  It  is 
certain  that  Christ,  in  John  5:  28,  29,  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  wicked ;  and,  inasmuch  as  he  evidently  re-echoes,  and  interprets 
the  prediction  in  Dan.  12:  2,  it  is  therefore  certain  that  that  prediction  also 
teaches  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked.  We  see  not  how  this 
can  be  regarded  by  a  candid  mind  as  any  thing  less  than  an  absolute  demon- 
stration. 

This  point  being  established,  it  is  manifest  that  the  resurrection  immediate- 
ly connected  with  the  rising  of  Christ,  did  not  correspond  to  the  terms  of  the 
prediction  in  Dan.  12:  2,  inasmuch  as  it  was  a  resurrection  only  of  saints. 
The  text  therefore  is  set  free  from  all  the  incumbrances  of  Mr.  Bush's  criti- 
cisms, and  stands  forth  again  in  its  natural  shape,  pointing  directly  to  the  time 
of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  as  the  period  when  many  of  the  dead  came 
forth,  some  to  the  resurrection  of  life,  and  some  to  the  resurrection  of  damna- 
tion. 

We  proceed  now  to  show  that  the  witnesses  of  the  New  Testament  confirm 
this  testimony  of  Daniel.  The  first  passage  to  which  we  call  attention,  is 
1  Cor.  15:  20 — 23.  '  But  now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  and  become 
the  first-fruits  of  them  that  slept.  For  since  by  man  came  death,  by  man 
came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.  But  every  man  in  his  own  order  ;  Christ  the 
first-fruits ;  afterward  they  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming.'  On  this  Mr. 
B.  remarks : 

"  As  the  first-fruits  of  the  harvest  are  a  sample  of  the  whole,  and  being  pre- 
sented in  the  temple  denominate  the  remainder  pure  and  holy,  so  Christ,  who, 
after  his  resurrection,  was  presented  in  the  heavenly  temple,  may  justly  be  re- 
garded as  an  exemplar  and  type  of  the  state  of  those  who  fall  asleep  in  him,  and 
an  argument  that  they  are  not,  as  dead  bodies  were,  among  the  polluted  things 
of  the  world,  but  holy  to  the  Lord,  and  admitted  to  his  presence.  The  idea  is 
not  so  much  that  Christ  was  the  first,  in  the  order  of  time,  who  rose  from  tlio 
dead — as  we  are  expressly  taught,  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  (hat 
prior  cases  of  resurrection  had  repeatedly  occurred — but  the  first  in  rank,  the 
author,  the  procuring  cause,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  saints.  But  tlie  whole  har- 
vest began  to  be  gathered  in  immediately  after  the  presentation  of  the  first-fruits, 
45 


862  utjsii  ojT  TiiD  nEstRREcTioN, 

ftWd  it  would  be  a  very  violent  construction  of  the  analogy  to  suppose  it  to  imply 
that  hundreds  or  thousands  of  years  nriight  elapse  between  the  resurrection  of  the 
grand  Precursor  and  that  of  the  mass  of  his  followers.  The  true  view  of  the 
tnatter  is  clearly  indicated  by  the  sequel,  in  which  we  are  taught,  that  this  resus- 
citation of  the  dead,  this  investiture  of  the  disciples  of  Christ  with  immortality, 
proceeds  in  a  manner  analagous  with  the  successive  generations  of  the  animal 
and  mortal  family.  Who  derive  their  first  life  from  Adam.  As  this  first  family  is 
not  formed  at  once^  nor  dissolved  at  once  ;  as  the  members  of  it  have  risen  into 
existence  in  succession  ;  so  neither  will  the  other  family  be  completed  at  once. 
Every  man  of  this  family  is  to  be  quickened  <  in  his  own  order,'  or  as  he  dieSf 
from  Christ  the  first-fruits  down  through  the  lapse  of  ages  to  the  last  generation 
of  believers  who  shall  be  found  alive  at  his  coming."  p,  173. 

The  reader  will  perceive  by  this  specimen,  how  freely  Mr.  B.,  in  the  car 
of  his  theory,  rides  over  and  tramples  down  all  obstructing  texts.  The  only 
reason  which  he  suggests  for  setting  aside  the  natural  meaning  of  the  term 
^first-fruits^''  is,  that '  we  are  expressly  taught  both  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New  that  prior  cases  of  resurrection  had  repeatedly  occurred.'  It 
is  true  that  prior  cases  of  return  from  Hades  to  Mortahty  are  recorded  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  ;  but  it  is  not  true  that  any  such  resurrection  as 
that  of  Christy  viz.,  a  rising  out  of  both  Hades  and  Mortality,  had  occurred 
before  his  resurrection.  This  is  indirectly  admitted  by  Mr.  B.  himself,  inas- 
much  as  he  concedes  that '  the  Old  Testament  saints'  were  in  an  intermediate 
Btate  below  the  resurrection,  till  the  rising  of  Christ.  The  only  reason  there- 
fore on  which  the  criticism  in  question  can  possibly  be  founded,  is  taken  away, 
and  the  criticism  of  course  falls  to  the  ground* 

The  word  translated  '  first-fruits,'  occurs  six  times  in  tlie  New  Testament, 
(besides  the  instances  in  the  passage  under  consideration,)  viz.,  in  Rom.  8; 
23,  11:  16,  16:  5,  1  Cor.  16:  15,  James  1:  18,  Bev.  14:  4  ;  and  in  every 
instance  designates  something  that  is  first  in  order  of  time.  Mr.  B.  says, 
*'  The  whole  harvest  began  to  be  gathered  immediately  after  the  presentation 
of  the  filrst-fruits,  and  it  would  be  a  very  violent  construction  of  the  analogy 
to  suppose  it  to  imply)  that  hundreds  or  thousands  of  years  might  elapse  be- 
tween the  resurrection  of  the  grand  Precursor  and  that  of  the  mass  of  his 
followers."  Let  the  reader  consider  how  much  greater  violence  is  done  to 
the  analogy,  by  supposing,  as  Mr.  B.  does,  that  a  part  of  the  resurrection- 
harvest  had  been  gathered  thousands  of  years  before  the  presentation  of  the 
first-fruits  !  Even  if  a  long  period  should  elapse  between  the  resurrection  of 
the  precursor  and  that  of  the  mass  of  his  followers,  it  would  leave  the  truth 
of  the  expression-^^  the  first-fruits'— untouched.  But  if  some  had  been  raised 
long  before  the  precursor, (!)  thei/  would  have  been  the  '  first-fruits,'  and  the 
application  of  that  term  to  him  would  be  false. 

The  natural  import  of  the  expression  '  first-fruits,'  in  this  passage,  is  fur- 
ther shown  to  be  the  true  one,  by  the  following  collateral  testimonies.  In  Rev. 
1:  6)  John  calls  Christ  ^  the  first-begotten  from  the  dead  ;^  in  Colossians 
1:  18,  Paul  calls  him  '  the  first-born  from  the  dead;^  and  in  Acts  26:  23, 
]Paul  declares  that  his  testimony  to  small  and  great  was  that  Christ  '  should 
Uuflfcr,  and  that  he  should  be  the  first  that  should  rise  from  the  dead.'' 

Christ  being  then  the  *  first-fruits,'  and  the  Old  Testament  saints  of  course 


BUSH   ON   THE   RESURRECTION,  863 

being  in  Hades  up  to  the  time  of  his  resurrection,  it  is  evident  that  the  as- 
ssinbly  doscribed  by  the  phrase—'  they  that  are  Christ's' — in  the  23d  verse, 
included  those  saints.  Paul  declares  that  the  resurrection  of  that  assembly 
was  to  take  place  '  Ohrisfs  coming.^  We  cannot  persuade  ourselves  that  it 
is  necessary  to  undertake  a  serious  refutation  of  Mr.  B's  comment  on  the 
words — '  every  man  in  his  own  order. ^  The  idea  that  this  signifies  that  every 
man  rises  'as  he  dies,'  is  stultified  by  what  immediately  follows.  Paul  pro- 
ceeds to  state  exphcitly  what  he  means  by  'every  man's  own  order,'  ^  Christ, 
the  first  fruits,'— this  is  Christ's  order ;  '  afterward  they  that  are  Christ's  at 
his  coming ;'  this  is  their  order.  The  meaning  plainly  is,  that  Christ  rises 
first,  and  afterward,  at  the  period  of  the  second  advent,  the  dead  in  Christ 
rise  simultaneously.  In  order  then  that  we  may  ascertain  when  the  first  great 
simultaneous  resurrection,  including  that  of  the  Old  Testament  saints,  took 
place,  we  have  only  to  ascertain  the  time  of  Christ's  second  coming, 

Mr.  Bush's  theory  of  the  second  coming,  is  akin  to  the  Universalist  and 
Grerman  theories.  He  admits  that  the  language  in  which  that  event  is  pre» 
dieted,  is  so  framed  as  to  appear  to  teach  that  the  advent  would  take  place 
within  the  Hfetime  of  the  generation  living  at  the  first  coming.  He  admits 
that  the  apostles  and  primitive  disciples  so  understood  it,  and  iij  all  their 
allusions  to  the  second  advent,  spoke  of  it  as  very  near.  But  he  thinks  they 
were  in  a  mistake,  and  that  we,  having  better  data,  are  qualified  to  judge  and 
correct  them.  He  admits  that  the  second  advent  began  to  take  place  at  least 
as  soon  as  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  insists  that  it  was  not  a  definite, 
limited  event,  but  an  extended  coming,  stretching  forward  from  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  to  the  end  of  prophecy.  Of  course  he  denies  that  any 
personal  coming  was  promised,  and,  like  the  Universalists,  resolves  the  second 
advent  into  a  spiritual  and  providential  coming. 

With  this  theory,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  Mr.  Bush  can  carry  along  his  doc» 
trine  that  the  resurrection  of  every  man  takes  place  as  he  dies.  He  leaves 
out  of  account  the  generations  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  whose  resurrection 
he  has  provided  for  in  two  ways,  viz  :  1,  by  supposing  according  to  ]m  pre- 
vailing theory  that  they  rose  as  they  died  ;  and,  2,  by  supposing  that  if  they 
did  not  rise  thus,  they  were  released  from  liinho  at  the  period  of  Christ's  res« 
urrection.  Then  in  regard  to  the  generations  of  the  Christian  dispensation, 
his  doctrine  is,  that  as  the  second  advent  was  a  continuous  event,  so  the  res^ 
urrection  is  continuous,  occurring  at  each  person's  death.  On  this  scheme 
we  submit  the  following  remarks. 

1.  It  appears  from  a  statement  in  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter  containing 
the  passage  under  consideration,  (viz.  1  Cor.  15;  20—23,)  and  also  from  a 
similar  passage  in  1  Thess.  4:  16,  17,  that  at  the  very  time  when  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead  at  the  comuig  of  Christ,  takes  place,  the  chafige  andtrans^ 
lation  of  the  living  also  takes  place.  If  then  the  second  coming  began  as 
early  as  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  has  extended  from  that  time  to 
this  ;  and  if  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  has  been  a  continuous  process,  cor= 
responding  to  this  second  coming,  then  the  change  and  translation  of  the  living 
has  Hkewise  been  going  on  during  the  ages  since  the  destructioa  of  Jerusalem* 
This,  we  presume,  Mr,  B,  will  shrink  from  maintaining. 


364  BUSH   ON   THE  IIESURRECTION. 

2.  The  plausibility  of  the  theory  before  iis  depends  entirely  on  the  denial 
of  a  personal  second  coming.  For  if  a  personal  coining  is  admitted,  then 
some  definite  time  must  be  assigned  to  it,  and  the  theory  of  an  extended  com- 
ing is  at  an  end.  If  Paul,  in  saying  that '  they  that  are  Christ's  shall  rise 
at  his  coming,'  refers  to  a  spiritual  or  providential  coming  which  may  extend 
over  a  tract  of  ages,  then  Mr.  B's  doctrine  of  a  successive  resurrection  of  in- 
dividuals, (which  in  fact  resolves  the  doctrine  of  the  second  coming  into  the 
old  notion  that  death  is  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man,)  may  stand.  But  if 
Paul  refers  to  ^personal  coming,  which  has  a  definite,  limited  space  on  the 
map  of  time,  then  the  resurrection  is  simultaneous,  and  Mr.  Bush's  theory  is 
subverted.  Now  it  is  a  singular  fact,  that  on  this  important  point,  he  offers 
exegetical  proof,  and  enters  into  no  discussion.  He  asserts  his  belief  that  a 
'•second personal  advent  was  never  promised,'  (p.  360,)  and  there  leaves  the 
matter.  He  comments  largely  on  1  Thess.  4:  13 — 18,  and  gives  his  views 
of  every  part  of  the  passage,  except  the  first  part  of  the  16th  verse — '  The 
Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  ivith  a  shout.'*  This  he  leaves  un- 
touched. He  professes  to  notice  every  text  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
New,  that  has  any  important  bearing  on  this  subject,  and  yet  never  alludes 
to  Acts  1:  11, — '  This  same  Jesus  which  is  taken  tip  from  you  into  heaven^ 

SHALL  SO  COME  IN  LIKE  MANNER  AS  YE  HAVE  SEEN  HIM  GO  INTO  HEA- 
VEN.' Both  of  these  passages  distinctly  predict  ^personal  coming.  If  the 
former  may  be  disposed  of,-  as  Mr.  B.  disposes  of  many  other  inconvenient 
texts,  by  attributing  it  to  the  erroneous  views  of  the  apostles,  this  cannot  be 
done  with  the  latter ;  for  it  is  tlie  word  of  two  angels.  As  Mr.  Bush,  in 
avoiding  all  notice  of  these  texts,  has  in  fact  left  the  case  to  go  against  him 
hy  default.,  w^e  are  at  liberty  to  assume  that  a  personal  second  advent  was 
promised,  and  was  legitimately  expected  by  the  primitive  disciples.  The 
doctrine  then  of  a  continuous  second  coming,  and  of  course  of  a  continuous 
resurrection,  vanishes  away.  The  question  returns,  When  did  Christ  come 
again,  as  he  ascended  ?  This  is  the  true  coming  Qjarousia)  and  appearing 
(^epiphaneia)  of  the  New  Testament.  This  could  not  occupy  a  long  period 
of  time,  and  with  this  definite  event  the  resurrection  was  immediately  con- 
nected. 

3.  If  Mr.  Bush  were  compelled  (as  we  think  he  will  be)  to  admit  the  doc- 
trine of  a  personal  second  coming,  we  see  not  how  he  could  avoid  the  conclu- 
sion that  it  took  place  in  connection  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  since 
he  teaches  already  that  the  second  coming  began  at  the  period  of  that  event. 
Bat  we  judge  from  some  of  his  remarks,  that  he  might  prefer  to  assign  the 
second  advent  to  the  period  of  the  sounding  of  the  seventh  trumpet,  when  Hhe 
kingdoms  of  this  world  become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  of  his  Christ.' 
Rev.  11: 15.  This  would  carry  it  forward  far  beyond  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, to  the  time  to  which  we  assign  the  second  judgment.  He  does  in  fact 
carry  forward  the  predicted  change  of  the  living  saints  to  that  time ;  and  as 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  indeed  the  second  coming  of  Christ  are  rep- 
resented as  synchronical  with  the  change  of  the  living,  we  see  no  reason  wliy 
all  these  events  should  not  be  carried  forward  together.  But  we  will  allow 
Mr.  B.  to  state  his  doctrine  in  his  own  words : 


BUSH   ON   THE   RESURRECTION.  865 

"Paul  undoubtedly  supposed  that  this  change  [spoken  of  in  1  Cor.  15:  52,] 
was  to  occur  simultaneously  with  that  promised  advent  of  the  Savior  that  was 
to  be  ushered  in  during  the  lifetime  of  that  generation — a  supposition  built  upon 
the  letter  of  numerous  predictions,  but  which  the  event  has  shown  to  be,  m  this 
respect,  erroneous.  The  fact  that  forms  the  burden  of  the  announcement  has 
not  yet  taken  place,  but  is  of  still  future  occurrence.  It  is  to  come  to  pass  at 
the  period  so  frequently  alluded  to  in  the  prophets,  as  to  be  distinguished  by 
something  that  is  here  termed  the  '  sounding  of  the  last  trumpet ;'  and  this  is 
doubtless  identical  with  the  last  in  the  series  of  the  seven  apocalyptical  trumpets, 
Rev.  11:  15,  which  announces  the  downfall  of  earthly  dominion,  and  the  king- 
doms of  this  world  becoming  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  his  Christ."  p.  200, 

The  onty  reason  here  assigned  for  imputing  error  to  the  apostle,  and  for 
carrying  forward  the  change  of  the  living  saints  to  the  end  of  the  kingdoms 
of  this  world,  is  the  assumption  that  the  '  last  trump'  in  1  Cor.  15:  52,  '  is 
doubtless  identical  with  the  last  in  the  series  of  the  seven  apocalyptical  trumpets, 
Rev.  11:  15.'  Now  let  the  reader  observe,  first,  that  in  1  Cor.  15:  52,  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  is  quite  as  closely  connected  with  the  '  last  trump' 
as  the  change  of  the  living ;  and  secondly,  that  the  personal  descent  of  Christ 
from  heaven  is  also  connected  with  the  same  '  last  trump'  in  1  Thess.  4:  16. 
'  The  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of 
the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of  God.^  There  is  no  possibility  of  sepa- 
rating either  of  these  three  events,  viz.  the  change,  the  resurrection,  and  the 
personal  advent,  from  the  '  last  trump';  and  if  the  '  last  trump'  is  identical 
with  the  seventh  trumpet  of  the  Apocalypse,  then  the  sounding  of  that  trum- 
pet is  the  signal  of  all  those  events.  This  view  alone  involves  Mr  B's  theory 
in  inextricable  confusion,  as  he  places  the  beginning  of  the  second  coming  and 
the  resurrection  back  as  far  as  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But  the  very 
foundation  of  this  hypothesis,  confused  as  it  is,  is  false.  The  '  last  trump'  in 
1  Cor.  15:  52,  is  7iot  identical  with  the  seventh  trumpet  of  the  Apocalypse. 
This  will  we  proceed  to  show. 

The  Apocalypse  was  not  written  till  many  years  after  Paul  wrote  to  the 
Corinthians.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  had  any  knowledge  of  the  seven 
trumpets  of  John's  vision.  In  the  expression,  ^  the  last  trump,'  he  manifestly 
alluded,  not  to  a  trumpet  of  a  subsequent  revelation,  but  to  the  trumpet  of 
which  Christ  spoke  in  Matt.  24:  31.  After  predicting  the  coming  of  the  Son 
of  man  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  prophecy  pro- 
ceeds— '  And  he  shall  send  his  angels  with  a  great  sound  of  a  trumpet^  and 
shall  gather  together  his  elect  from  the  four  winds,'  &c.  Here  is  the  coming 
of  Christ  in  the  same  juxtaposition  with  the  sounding  of  the  trumpet  as  in 
1  Thess.  ^4:  16.  Moreover,  as  the  gathering  of  the  elect  is  manifestly  only 
another  expression  for  the  raising  them  from  the  dead,  i.  e.  gathering  them 
out  of  Hades  and  Mortality,  it  is  evident  that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
and  the  change  of  the  living  is  also  immediately  connected  with  the  sounding 
of  the  trumpet  in  Matt.  24:  31,  just  as  it  is  in  1  Cor.  15:  52,  and  1  Thess. 
4:  16.  Now  if  we  can  prove  that  Christ,  in  Matt.  24:  31,  did  not  refer  to 
the  seventh  trumpet  of  the  Apocalypse,  then  it  will  be  proved  that  Paul  in 
ICor.  15:  52,  and  1  Thess.  4:  16,  did  not  refer  to  that  trumpet.     This  point 


^^^  BUSH  ON  THE  RESURRECTION. 

might  be  settled  by  simply  appealing  to  the  fact  that  the  trumpet  of  which 
Christ  speaks  was  to  sound  immediately  after  the  tribulation  of  the  destruc- 
tion  of  Jerusalem,  and  within  the  lifetime  of  the  generation  living  when  the 
prophecy  was  uttered  ;  (see  ver.  29  &  34  ;)  whereas  the  seventh  trumpet  of 
the  Apocalypse  is  confessedly  to  be  referred  to  a  far  later  period.  But  Mr. 
Bush,  hke  many  others,  has  a  way  of  evading  the  force  of  the  declaration — 
'  This  generation  shall  not  pass  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled.'  Because  a 
long  tract  of  time  is  incidentally  alluded  to  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Luke 
21:  24,  (viz.  '  the  times  of  the  Gentiles,'  during  which  the  holy  city  is  to  be 
trodden  down,)  he  feels  at  liberty  to  except  from  the  above  declaration  any 
of  the  items  going  before  it,  which  he  chooses  to  place  beyond  the  time  of  a 
generation  from  the  period  of  Christ's  ministry.  We  will  therefore  adopt 
another  method  of  proof.  In  the  6th  and  7th  chapters  of  Revelation  we  have 
a  description  of  Christ's  second  coming  entirely  parallel  to  the  prediction  in 
Matt.  24.  It  concludes,  as  the  latter  does,  with  an  announcement  of  the 
ingathering  of  the  elect  from  the  four  winds,  occupying  the  whole  of  the  7th 
chapter.  Of  course  the  trumpet,  which  Christ  makes  the  signal  of  the  gath- 
ering, is  included,  though  it  is  not  mentioned,  in  the  transactions  of  John's 
vision.  Its  place  is  at  the  beginning  of  the  7th  chapter.  Now  the  whole  of 
the  transactions  of  the  two  chapters  in  question,  take  place  at  the  successive 
opening  of  the  first  six  seals.  The  appearing  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  the 
gathering  of  the  elect  belong  to  the  sixth  seal.  The  trumpet  therefore  of 
which  Christ  speaks  in  Matt.  24:  31,  sounded  in  the  interval  between  the 
sixth  and  seventh  seals.  This  was  before  the  sounding  of  any  of  the  seven 
trumpets  of  John's  vision.  It  was  not  till  the  opening  of  the  seventh  seal, 
that  the  angels  having  the  seven  trumpets  '  prepared  themselves  to  sound.' 
See  chap.  8:  1,  2.  Thus  it  is  proved  that  Paul's  '  last  trump'  was  separa- 
ted from  the  seventh  trumpet  of  Rev.  11:  15,  by  the  whole  interval  between 
the  sixth  seal  and  the  final  period  of  judgment,  i.  e.  by  more  than  the  whole 
time  occupied  hj  all  the  trumpets.  This  demonstration  must  hold  good  till 
at  is  shown  that  Matt.  24,  and  Rev.  6  and  7,  do  not  refer  to  the  same  events 
iind  the  same  period  of  time.     This  can  never  be  done. 

Why  then  does  Paul  call  the  signal  of  the  gathering  of  the  elect,  the  *  last 
trump  ?'  Simply  because  it  was  the  last  trump  of  the  Jewish  dispensation. 
On  the  same  principle,  the  times  immediately  preceding  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  were  called  the  '  last  days ;'  not  as  being  the  last  days  of  the  world's 
^existence,  for  the  '  times  of  the  Gentiles'  w^ere  to  follow ;  but  as  being  the 
last  days  of  the  Jewish  aion.  The  trumpet  which  gathered  the  elect  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  was  the  '  last  trump'  of  Judaism,  and  immedi- 
ately preceded  a  resurrection  and  judgment,  i.  e.  a  consummation  of  destiny 
to  '  manj^'  Afterwards,  during  the  times  of  the  Gentiles,  another  series  of 
trumpets  were  to  sound ;  and  the  last  of  these  is  the  signal  of  another  and 
£nal  resurrection  and  judgment. 

Having  thus  found  that  the  '  last  trump'  was  to  sound  immediately  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  it  is  made  plain  that  Paul's  statement  of  the 
order  of  the  resurrection  in  1  Cor.  15:  28,  places  the  rising  of  '  them  that 
are  Christ's,'  at  the  very  time  where  Daniel  places  the  ^awaking  of  many,' 


§  52.  THE  KEYS  OF  HELL  AND  OF  DEATH. 

CiiRiST  sajs,  '  I  am  he  that  liveth,  and  was  dead  ;  and,  behold,  I  am  alive 
for  evermore.  Amen  ;  and  have  the  keys  of  hell  and  of  death.''  Rev.  1:  18. 
One  who  has  the  key  of  an  enclosm^e,  has  the  command  of  it,  and  can  release 
those  who  are  held  captive  in  it.  The  evident  import  of  the  above  words,  is, 
that  Christ,  by  his  death  and  resurrection,  has  obtained  the  command  of  the 
two  enclosures  denominated  hell  and  death,  so  that  he  has  power  to  release 
their  prisoners.  The  word  translated  hell^  is  hades  in  the  original,  and  simply 
signifies  the  abode  of  the  dead.  In  1  Cor.  15:  55  it  is  translated  grave, 
which,  if  it  is  understood  as  referring  to  spirits  instead  of  bodies,  is  a  better 
rendering  than  hell.  Hades  is  not  necessarily  a  place  o'i  punishment,  as  hell 
is  usually  understood  to  be. 

Paul  says,  '  Christ  both  died  and  rose  and  revived  that  he  might  he  Lord 
both  of  the  dead  and  the  living.''  Rom.  14:  9.  We  regard  this  as  entirely 
parellel  to  the  former  text.  It  declares  the  effect  of  Christ's  death  and  resur- 
rection. That  effect  is  the  acquirement  of  the  command  of  the  two  great 
departments  of  humanity,  the  living  and  the  dead.  To  be  the  Lord  of  the 
Hving  and  the  dead,  is  the  same  thing  as  to  have  the  keys  of  hades  and  of 
death.  Hades  is  the  enclosure  of  the  dead  ;  and  by  having  its  key,  Christ 
is  Lord  of  the  dead.  It  follows  then  that  death  is  the  enclosure  of  the  living. 
This  will  not  seem  incongruous  if  we  substitute  for  death,  the  word  mortality. 
This  world  is  properly  the  world  of  mortality.  '  Through  fear  of  death  men 
are  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage.'  They  are  always  exposed  to  death. 
Their  life  is  in  fact  a  protracted  death.  When  they  are  dead  they  pass  out 
of  the  enclosure  of  mortality  into  a  state  that  is  not  exposed  to  death.  The 
'  king  of  terrors'  reigns  over  this  world  only — not  over  hades. 

This  interpretation  of  the  words  death  and  hell  will  be  confirmed  by  refer- 
ence to  another  parallel  passage,  viz.  1  Cor.  15:  51 — b^.  Paul  says,  '  We 
shall  not  all  sleep,  but  w^e  shall  all  be  changed  ;  in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling 
of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump  :  for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall 
be  raised  incorruptible,  and  w^e  shall  be  changed.'  Here  we  have  a  predic- 
ted manifestation  of  the  fact  that  Christ  is  Lord  of  both  the  living  and  the 
dead — that  he  has  tJie  keys  of  hades  and  mortality.  In  raising  the  dead,  he 
would  prove  that  he  had  the  key  of  hades ;  in  changing  the  living  from  a 
mortal  to  an  immortal  state,  he  would  prove  that  he  had  the  key  of  mortahty,.. 
and  could  release  its  prisoners.  Accordingly  Paul,  in  view  of  this  twofold 
manifestation  of  Christ's  Lordship,  breaks  forth  in  exultation  thus  :  '  0  death,, 
where  is  thy  sting  ?  0  hades,  where  is  thy  victory  ?'  The  designations  here 
given  to  the  two  great  enclosures  which  Christ  was  to  open  at  his  coming, 
are  the  very  same  with  those  in  the  passage  first  cited.  Rev.  1:  18.  As 
Christ  says  he  has  the  key  of  death,  so  Paul  exclaims  '  0  death  where  is  thy 
sting  V  with  manifest  reference  to  the  predicted  defeat  of  death  by  the  change 
of  the  living  saints.  As  Christ  says  he  has  the  key  of  hades,  so  Paul  exclaims, 
'  0  hades,  where  is  thy  victory '?  with  manifest  reference  to  the  release  of 
the  dead. 


3G8  KEYS  OF  HELL  AND  OF  DEATH. 

It  is  plainly  implied  in  the  fact  that  Christ  obtained  the  keys  of  mortality 
and  hades  by  his  death  and  resurrection,  that  these  enclosures,  or  rather  the 
one  great  enclosure  in  which  they  are  subdivisions,  had  never  before  been 
opened.  If  any  of  the  human  race  ever  came  out  of  the  death-and-hades 
prison,  before  Christ  obtained  its  key, — if  there  was  any  other  way  than 
through  the  door  which  his  death  and  resurrection  opened,  by  which  men 
might  'climb  up'  into  heaven,  what  need  was  there  of  his  obtaining  the  key 
at  such  a  cost? 

INIen  had  indeed  passed  and  repassed  from  one  of  the  great  apart- 
ments to  the  other,  in  various  Avays,  before  the  advent  of  Christ.  By 
natural  death,  the  mass  of  mankind  had  been  from  the  beginning  of  the  world 
successively  passing  from  mortality  into  hades.  In  two  instances  at  least — 
those  of  Enoch  and  Elijah — this  transit  had  taken  place  by  a  miraculous  pro- 
cess without  natural  death.  There  is  no  evidence  that  these  persons  passed 
into  any  other  abode  than  that  which  is  common  to  the  dead.  The  only  pecu- 
liarity in  their  case  was  the  extraordinary  manner  of  the  passage.  On  the 
other  hand,  in  a  few  instances,  such  as  that  of  Lazarus,  the  dead  had-'returned 
from  hades  into  mortality.  They  did  not  rise  from  the  dead  in  any  such 
sense  as  that  in  which  the  dead  were  to  rise  at  the  coming  of  Christ ;  for 
they  resumed  their  mortal  bodies,  and  therefore  only  re-entered  the  enclosure 
of  mortality. 

There  is  then  no  evidence,  either  from  the  cases  of  those  who  w^ere  trans- 
lated, or  of  those  who  were  raised  to  life,  that  the  door  of  the  death-and-hades 
prison  Avas  ever  opened  till  Christ  obtained  the  key.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  abundant  evidence  that  all  men,  previous  to  the  death  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  were  detained,  either  in  mortality  or  in  hades.  We  will  rest 
the  case  for  the  present  on  two  texts,  viz.,  the  words  of  Christ- — ''No  man 
Jiath  ascended  uj}  to  heaven,^  (John  3: 13,)  and  the  words  of  Peter — 'David 
is  not  ascended  into  the  Jieavens.^  Acts  2:  34.  Mr.  Bush  rejects  the  natural 
meaning  of  these  texts,  and  reduces  them  to  mere  denials  '  oid, public^  official 
and  glorious  ascension,  like  that  of  Christ.'  This  gloss  is  wholly  unauthorised. 
Indeed  we  see  not  why  Mr.  Bush  should  conceive  that  he  has  any  occasion 
for  it ;  for  he  himself  teaches  in  one  of  the  extracts  which  we  have  cited  in 
the  preceding  article,  that  the  Old  Testament  saints  were  detained  in  a  state 
of '  imperfect  happiness'  called  paradise,  and  were  '  not  in  heaven'  previous 
to  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  So  that  whether  these  texts  teach  the  doctrine 
or  not,  he  admits,  for  aught  that  we  can  see,  that  no  man  had  ascended  to 
heaven  at  the  time  they  were  uttered. 

But  it  can  be  sliown  that  Peter,  in  saying  that '  David'had  ^not^ascended 
into  the  heavens,'  meant  that  he  was  still  in  hades.  The  reader  will  observe 
that  the  leading  promise  which  Peter  is  commenting  upon  in  the  passage  in 
question,  is  that  contained  in  the  27th  verse — '  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul 
in  hades,  neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thine  holy  one  to  see  corruption.'  This,  he 
insists,  must  be  applied  to  Christ,  because  the  facts  in  David's  case  do  not 
admit  of  its  application  to  him.  What  are  the  facts  ?  Obviously  these,  viz  : 
David  is  dead  and  buried,  and  has  never  risen  from  the  dead  and  ascended 
into  heaven.  (See  ver.  29.)     This  state  of  things  in  the  case  of  David  stands 


KEYS   OF  HELL  AND   OF  DEATH.  869 

Opposed  to  both  parts  of  the  promise.  His  soul  is  left  in  hades,  and  his  flesh 
has  seen  corruption.  In  another  discourse,  where  Paul  argues  from  this 
promise  in  the  same  way, .  (see  Acts  13:  35 — 37,)  he  quotes  only  the  last 
part  of  it,  '  Thou  shalt  not  suffer  thine  holy  one  to  see  corruption,'  and  then 
shows  that  it  cannot  be  applied  to  DaVid,  by  simply  affirming  that  he  '  saw 
corruption.'  But  Peter  quotes  the  whole  of  it,  and  affirms  by  plain  implica- 
tion, not  only  that  David's  body  had  seen  corruption,  but  that  his  soul  was 
left  in  hades,  inasmuch  as  he  had  not  ascended  into  the  heavens.  It  is  un- 
(][uestionable  that  the  Jews  in  Peter's  time  did  believe  that  all  the  dead  w^ere 
m  hades,  awaiting  the  resurrection  of  the  last  day ;  and  in  his  argument  on 
the  promise  in  question,  he  manifestly  assumed  this,  as  well  as  the  fact  that 
David's  body  saw  corruption.     (See  Jalm's  Archaeology,  §314,  §318.) 

In  affirming  that  the  Old  Testament  saints  had  not  ascended  to  heaven, 
but  were  detained  in  hades  till  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  we  are  not  to  be 
understood  as  denying  their  ultimate  salvation,  or  as  teaching  that  they  went 
to  liell^  in  the  English  sense  of  that  w^ord.  The  paradise  into  which  Christ 
and  the  thief  went  on  the  day  of  their  death,  is,  as  Mr.  Bush  suggests,  in 
hades.  In  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  we  perceive  that  Abra- 
ham, though  he  was  in  the  same  world  with  the  tormented  sinner,  was  in  a 
very  different  region  of  that  world,  and  in  a  very  different  state. 

The  Bible  almost  uniformly  characterizes  the  condition  of  the  inhabitants  of 
hades,  as  a  state  of  sleep.  (See  Ban.  12:  2,  1  Cor.  15:  51,  &c.)  It  is  not 
to  be  inferred  from  this,  that  they  are  in  a  state  of  literal  dormancy  or  un- 
consciousness, for  we  have  positive  evidence  to  the  contrary.  The  meaning 
13,  that  as  a  person,  in  ordinary  sleep,  is  withdrawn  from  the  world  of  sense, 
and  exercises  his  consciousness  and  activity,  so  far  as  he  has  any,  in  an  in- 
ward subjective  sphere,  so  the  dead  are  withdrawn  from  the  material  world, 
and  exercise  their  consciousness  and  activity  in  a  sphere  which,  with  reference 
to  the  material  world,  is  inward  and  subjective.  They  are  in  the  soul  of  the 
universe,  instead  of  the  body.  Their  operation  on  the  surface  ceases  at  death. 
Their  sleep  is  opposed  to  the  visible  activity  of  this  world,  and  opposed  to  the 
perfect  activity  of  the  final  resurrection.  Christ,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the 
dead,  may  be  said  to  have  been  asleep  while  he  was  in  hades.  His  activity 
in  this  world  ceased.  But  when  he  arose  out  of  hades  and  ascended  to  the 
Father,  he  assumed  the  government  of  heaven  and  earth,  i.  e.,  entered  upon 
a  career  of  activity  in  both  an  inward  and  an  outward  sphere.  So  the  saints, 
while^they  are  in  hades,  ai*e  asleep  as  being  confined  to  an  inward  sphere  ; 
but  when  they  come  forth  into  the  resurrection,  they  become  active  again  in 
the  outward  as  well  as  the  inward  world. 

They  are  said  to  '  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth^^  because  their  abode, 
happy  though  it  be,  is  not  in  heaven,  but  in  hades,  which  is  the  inner  region 
of  the  world  of  matter,  and  accordingly  is  called  '  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth,' 
(Eph.  4:  9,)  and  '  the  heart  of  the  earth.'  Matt.  12:  40.  It  is  in  this  sense 
also  that  they  are  said  to  be  '  in  their  graves.'  John  5:  28. 

Now  we  hold  with  Mr.  Bush,  that  the  resurrection  has  nothing  to  do  with 
corrupted  material  bodies,  and  that  the  dead  enter  into  hades  and  exist  there 
in  those  spiritual  bodies  which  are  to  be  raised.     But  is  this  the  resurrection  ? 
46 


370  KEYS  OF  HELL  AND  OF  DEAttf. 

Is  the  mere  possession  of  spiritual  bodies,  or  the  disengagement  of  those  bo* 
dies  from  their  earthly  tenements,  or  the  mere  natural  vitality  of  those  bodied 
without  reference  to  the  quickening  of  God  or  to  the  sphere  in  which  they 
exist,  to  be  considered  a  rising  from  the  dead  ?  We  say.  No.  The  inner 
body,  or  what  Mr  B.  calls  the  '  spiritual  germ,'  may  be  conceived  to  enter  a 
State  at  death,  not  a  whit  more  favorable  to  its  vitality  than  the  atmosphere 
of  this  world  The  quickning  of  the  seed  depends  not  upon  its  own  capability 
of  germinating,  but  on  the  soil  and  atmosphere  into  which  it  falls,  on  the 
Sunshine  and  rain  which  are  sent  upon  it.  All  the  evidence  we  have  on  the 
subject  goes  to  pi*ove  that  hades  is  no  more  favorable  to  the  quickening  of 
spiritual  bodies,  than  this  world.  Mortality  and  hades  are  classed  together 
in  the  Bible  as  twin-states,  equally  remote  from  the  world  of  resurrection-life. 
All  the  inhabitants  of  hades,  the  wicked  as  well  as  the  righteous,  are  alive, 
have  consciousness  and  activity,  and  in  this  sense  are  in  an  anastasis.  They 
are  not  dead  in  the  Sadducean  sense  of  non-existence.  The  righteous  in 
hades  doubtless  have  a  degree  oi  spiritual  life,  corresponding  to  that  of  the 
saints  in  this  world  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  in  their  condition  are 
raised  far  above  the  wicked.  In  this  special  sense  they  may  be  said  to  be 
in  an  anastasis^  i.  e.  they  stand  up  from  the  miserable  state  of  those  in  Ge* 
henna.  We  are  inclined  to  think  that  Christ  had  this  kind  of  anastasis  in 
view  when  he  proposed  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  to  the  Sadducees  as  in- 
stances of  a  resurrection.  They  might  be  said  to  be  in  a  resurrection,  just 
as  believers  in  this  world  are,  but  not  in  the  resurrection. 

What  then  is  the  resurrection  ?  We  may  find  an  answer  to  this  question 
by  tracing  the  process  of  Christ's  rising.  When  he  died,  his  spiritual  body 
^vas  disengaged  from  its  material  tenement,  and  he  entered  hades.  He  was 
in  '  the  heart  of  the  earth'  three  days.  Now,  according  to  Mr.  B's  theory, 
he  rose  from  the  dead  as  soon  as  he  died,  and  was  in  the  true  resurrection 
during  those  three  days !  Is  this  the  Bible  account  ?  Not  at  all.  After 
three  days  hades  gave  him  up,  '  because  it  was  not  possible  that  he  should  be 
holden  of  it.'  Here  commenced  his  resurrection.  The  first  step  of  his  as- 
cent was  a  rising  out  of  that  world  where  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  were-— 
nay,  out  of  paradise  itself,  for  that  is  a  part  of  hades  !  This  was  not  a  mere 
disengagement  of  his  spiritual  body  from  its  earthly  vehicle,  but  a  change  of 
worlds,  a  disengagement  of  his  spiritual  body  and  his  soul  from  the  place  where 
men  '  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth.'  The  process  did  not  end  here.  He 
had  ascended  out  of  hades  and  had  got  its  key.  But  he  had  returned  to  his 
material  body,  and  to  the  sphere  in  vvhich  it  dwelt, i.e.  to  mortality.  It  re- 
mained for  him  to  burst  the  barriers  of  this  world  and  ascend  to  the  Father* 
l^he  life  which  hades  could  not  hold,  was  strong  enough  to  change  his  mate- 
i-ial  body  and  assimilate  it  to  the  spiritual,  as  was  proved  by  his  assuming 
invisibility  and  entering  apartments  whose  doors  were  shut,  at  will.  Finally 
earth  could  not  hold  him,  and  he  ascended  to  the  bosom  of  God.* 

*  Wejud<2;'e  thai  this  was  the  order  in  which  he  obtained  the  oomtnnnd  of  the  two 
gfeat  enclosures,  from  the  peculiar  phraseolog-y  of  Rom.  14:  9.  'Christ  both  died,  and 
toscj  and  revived,  [i.  e.  lived  ai^ain,]  thai  he  might  be  Lord  both  of  tlie  dead  and  the 
living-.  As  it  was  his  death  ihat  gave  him  the  command  of  the  dead,  so  it  appears  from 
this  language,  that  it  was  his  rising  and  living  again,  and  not  h'la  life  before  death,  thai 


KEYS  OF  HELL  AND  OP  DEATH.  871 

Now  the  reader  will  observe,  that  this  stupendous  transaction  was  not  a 
mere  subjective  change,  a  development  of  Christ's  individual  vitality  accor» 
ding  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  germination,  as  Mr.  Bush's  theory  would  make 
it.  Here  is  a  translation,  first  from  hades  to  this  world,  and  then  from  this 
world  to  the  presence  of  God — a  vast  change  of  coyidition  as  well  as  of  vital» 
ity.  The  scriptures  constantly  ascribe  it  not  to  any  natural  law,  but  to  the 
'mighty  power  of  God.'  This  is  a  specimen  of  the  universal  resurrection 
which  goes  before  the  judgment.  Hades  and  mortality  gave  up  '  many'  of 
their  dead  at  the  second  coming  of  Christ ;  and  shall  give  up  all  their  dead 
at  the  voice  of  the  seventh  trumpet.     See  Rev.  20:  12,  13. 

We  may  facilitate  our  conceptions  of  the  resurrection  which  is  to  result 
from  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  of  its  distinction  from  all  previous  partial 
anastases,  by  an  illustration.  Suppose  hades  and  mortality  to  be  two  apart' 
ments  on  the  same  floor  of  a  house.  Heaven,  or  the  place  of  God's  presence, 
is  the  story  above.  Now  the  resurrection  is  not  a  transit  from  one  of  the 
lower  apartments  to  the  other,  even  though  that  transit  is  made  miraculously, 
as  in  the  case  of  Enoch  and  Elijah :  nor  is  it  a  return  to  one  of  these  apart' 
ments,  after  having  left  it,  as  in  the  case  of  Lazarus  :  but  it  is  an  ascent  from 
both  of  them  to  the  upper  story,  which  never  took  place  till  Christ—'  the  first' 
born  from  the  dead'^led  the  way. 

This  ascent  out  of  hades  and  mortality,  so  far  as  the  change  is  objective^  is 
the  destiny  of  the  wicked  as  well  as  the  righteous.  The  same  mighty  power 
tliat  brought  again  Christ  from  hades,  will  at  last '  draw  all  men  unto  him.' 
John  12:  32.  The  dead  small  and  great  must  stand  before  God;  and  for  that 
purpose  death  and  hell  must  give  them  up.  The  paradise  of  hades  is  not  the 
find  home  of  the  righteous.  They  are  to  be  brought  up  to  judgment,  and 
thence  pass  into  the  kingdom  of  the  Father.  So  the  gehenna  ot  hades  is  not 
the  final  home  of  the  wicked.  They  too  are  to  be  brought  up  to  judgmejit, 
and  thence  pass  into  the  lake  of  fire. 

gave  him  the  command  of  the  living-.  The  order  ofthe  words  in  Rev.  1:  18,  favors  the 
same  view  :  *  I  am  he  that  liveth,  and  was  dead,  &c.  ;  and  have  the  keys  of  hades  an4 
of  death.'  Hades  stands  first.  So  in  1  Thess.  4:16,  the  power  of  his  resurrection 
takes  eflect  first  oii  the  dead  and  then  on  the  living-. 


§53.    OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  FOREGOING  VIEWS  OF  THE 
RESURRECTION. 

The  position  which  we  have  assumed  and  maintained  in  our  previous  arti- 
cles, is,  that  the  first  resurrection  (after  that  of  Christ)  occurred  at  the  sec- 
ond advent,  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Against  this 
the  following  objections  may  be  raised.  1.  In  Matt.  27:  52,  there  is  an  ac- 
count of  a  resurrection  of  saints  immediately  folloiving  Chrisfs  resurrection, 
2.  Paul,  in  2  Cor.  5:  6 — 8,  and  Phil.  1:  23,  expresses  his  desire  to  leave 
the  body,  that  he  might  be  present  with  Christ ;  from  which  it  is  inferred 
that  he  looked  for  an  immediate  entrance  into  the  resurrection  at  death.  3. 
Daniel  predicts  an  awaking  of  the  wicked  as  well  as  the  righteous  at  the  first 
resurrection  ;  and  yet  no  specific  account  of  the  resurrection  of  some  to  dam- 
nation appears  in  Matt.  24,  Rev.  6  and  7,  or  in  any  other  New  Testament 
description  of  the  second  advent,  while  in  Rev.  20  it  is  expressly  said  that 
'  the  rest  of  the  dead  [i  e.  all  except  the  saints  that  reigned  with  Christ] 
lived  not  again  till  the  thousand  years  were  finished.' 

Our  object  in  the  present  article  is  to  lead  the  reader  to  a  stand-point  from 
which  he  will  see  that  the  passages  on  which  the. above  objections  are  founded, 
are  entirely  consistent  with  those  other  passages  on  which  our  theory  of  the 
first  resurrection  rests.  In  order  to  do  this  w^e  must  try  once  more  to  pene- 
trate the  depths  of  the  interior  v,^orld,  and  take  a  comprehensive  view  of  the 
*  heavenly  places'  (epourania)  which  were  concerned  in  the  changes  effected 
by  the  rseurrection. 

It  is  known  to  all  who  are  familiar  with  the  Bible,  that  the  word  heaven  is 
used  in  several  different  senses  by  the  inspired  writers.  Paul  speaks  of  the 
^AW  heaven  in  2  Cor.  12:  2;  from  which  expression  it  is  evident  that  a 
series  of  at  least  three  distinct  heavens  was  recognized  in  his  theory  of  the 
celestial  world.  Without  attempting  at  present  a  full  investigation  of  the 
ouranology  of  the  Bible,  we  ask  the  reader's  attention  to  some  facts  relatmg  to 
the  tivo  heavens  most  immediately  concerned  in  the  transactions  of  the  sec- 
ond advent. 

1.  The  heaven  in  hades.  We  learn  from  the  subsequent  language  of  Paul 
that  the  '  third  heaven'  of  which  he  speaks  in  2  Cor.  12:  2,  is  j)<^it^cidi8e. 
(See  ver.  4.)  But  paradise  is  the  place  where  Christ  went  with  the  peni- 
tent thief;  on  the  day  of  his  death.  (See  Luke  23  :  43.)  His  resurrection 
did  not  take  place  till  three  days  afterward.  Paradise  therefore  was  not  a 
resurrection-hQdiYQn^  but  an  apartment  in  hades,  occupied  by  the  departed 
saints,  who  were  waiting  for  the  advent  of  Christ.  This  is  admitted,  as  we  have 
seen,  by  Mr.  Bush. 

This  intermediate  apartment  was  properly  called  heaven  in  a  relative  sense. 
It  may  be  conceived  of  as  bearing  a  similar  relation  to  the  worldly  tabernacle, 
as  that  which  the  soul  bears  to  the  body.  It  was  a  state  more  purely  spirit- 
ual, and  therefore  nearer  to  God  than  the  world  of  flesh  aud  blood.  As  the 
primary  idea  of  heaven  is  that  of  the  clear  expanse  above  the  earth,  so,  in  a 


OBJECTIONS.  873 

spiritual  view,  any  state  which  is  more  spiritual  and  nearer  to  God  than  that 
of  mortality,  is,  with  reference  to  .mortahty,  a  higher  state,  i.  e.  a  heaven. 
But  it  is  evident  that  paradise  was  not  ^heaven  in  the  absolute  sense,  (1) 
from  the  fact  that  it  was  in  hades,  i.  e.  in  the  grave — one  of  the  apartments, 
the  key  of  which  Christ  obtained  by  his  death ;  (2)  from  the  fact  that  Christ 
did  not  remain  in  it,  but  ascended  from  it  to  his  final  glory ;  (3)  from  the 
fact  that  Christ,  though  he  had  been  in  paradise,  assured  his  disciples  on  the 
day  of  his  resurrection  that  he  had  'not  ascended  to  his  Father ^^  from  which 
it  is  manifest  that  paradise  was  not  the  presence  of  the  Father. 

2.  The  angelic  heaven.  Christ,  in  his  resurrection,  passed  first  from  par- 
adise to  an  intermediate  state,  in  which  he  was  seen  by  the  disciples  for  a 
season,  and  then  ascended  to  the  Father.  As  his  resurrection  was  the  '  first- 
fruits  of  the  general  resurrection  of  the  saints,  it  is  evident  from  that  sample, 
that  the  presence  of  the  Father  is  the  upper  terminus  of  the  resurrection- 
ascent.  Now  the  presence  of  the  Father  is  the  angelic  heaven.  Christ  says 
of  his.  little  ones — 'In  heaven^  their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my 
Father  who  is  in  heaven.^  Matt.  18:  10.  Accordingly  Paul,  in  his  great 
summary  of  the  facts  in  the  history  of '  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,'  specifies 
that  he  was  'justified  in  the  spirit,  [i.  e.  at  his  resurrection,]  and  appeared 
to  angels ^^  [i.  e.,  took  his  place  in  the  angelic  heaven — the  presence  of  the 
Father.]  1  Tim.  3:  16.  In  exact  harmony  with  this  view,  Christ,  in  his  de- 
scription of  the  ultimate  state  of  the  saints,  says, — '  They  who  shall  be  ac- 
counted worthy  to  obtain  that  world,  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  nei- 
ther marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage  ;  neither  can  they  die  any  more  :  for 
they  are  equal  unto  the  angels ;  and  are  the  children  of  God,  being  the  chil- 
dren of  the  resurrection.'  Luke  20:  35,  36. 

The  angehc  heaven,  being  the  presence  of  God,  is  the  highest  apartment 
of  the  spiritual  world,  and  is  therefore  heaven  in  the  absolute  sense.  It  is  the 
central  sanctuary  of  the  universe — -and  was  represented  by  the  holy  of  holies 
in  the  Mosaic  tabernacle.     See  Heb.  9:  3,  12,  24. 

Now  when  we  affirm,  on  the  authority  of  Christ  and  Peter,  that  no  man 
had  ascended  to  heaven  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  we  do  not  mean  that  no 
man  had  ascended  to  paradise — the  heaven  of  hades.  That  w^as  unquestion- 
ably  the  resting-place  of  all  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  expressly 
said  that  Elijah  '  went  up  to  heaven''  in  the  sight  of  Elisha ;  (2  Kings  2:  11 ;) 
and  whether  this  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  symbolical  exhibition,  or  as  the  actual 
transit  of  Elijah  to  a  region  in  the  upper  atmosphere,  it  is  in  either  case 
accordant  with  the  relative  position  which  is  assigned  to  paradise  by  the  lan- 
guage of  Paul  in  2  Cor.  12:  4.  The  apostle  was  '  caught  up'  as  was  Elijah. 
What  we  maintain,  is,  that  no  man  had  passed  beyond  the  heaven  of  hades  to 
the  angelic  heaven ;  that  Christ  was  the  first  who  ascended  from  paradise  to 
the  presence  of  the  Father.  And  it  is  with  reference  to  the  presence  of  the 
Father,  as  the  terminus  of  the  resurrection  and  the  ultimate  destination  of  the 
saints,  that  we  affirm  that  there  was  no  resurrection  before  Christ's — that  he 
was  '  the  first-born  from  the  dead.'  Our  position  is  that  which  Paul  explicitly 
maintains  in  the  9th  chapter  of  Hebrews,  and  often  incidentally  assumes  else- 
where in  that  book,  viz.  that  '  the  way  into  the  holiest  [i.  e.  the  presence  of 


874  OBJECTIONS. 

God  or  the  angelic  heaven]  was  not  made  manifest  while  the  first  tabernaclo 
was  standing' — that  Christ  was  the  'forerunner^  of  all  saints  in  the  transtion 
to  the  true  heaven. which  is  to  be  their  final  abode.     (See  Heb.  6:  19,  20.) 

As  the  purpose  of  the  incarnation,  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ'  was  the 
at-one-ment  of  man  with  God,  so  one  great  change  involved  in  the  execution 
of  that  purpose,  was  the  union  of  the  human  heaven  with  the  angelic  heaven. 
The  veil  of  the  central  sanctuary  was  to  be  removed.  Man  was  to  be  brought 
up  out  of  hades  and  mortality,  into  the  presence  of  the  Father  and  his  holy 
angels.  Christ  assumed  human  nature,  and  by  his  life  and  death  established 
spiritual  connection  with  the  inner  and  outer  regions  of  humanity.  Then  he 
ascended  to  the  presence  of  the  Fathor,  and  thus  completed  the  chain  of 
communication  between  the  two  spiritual  corporations  which  were  to  be  brought 
together.  The  question  now  arises.  At  what  time  did  the  union  of  the  human 
with  the  angelic  heaven  take  place  ?  We  answer.  At  the  time  when  Christ 
*  came  in  the  glory  of  his  Father,  with  his  holy  ayigels,  to  reward  every  man 
according  to  his  works.'  That  was  at  the  close  of  the  Jewish  dispensation. 
See  Matt.  16:  27,   25:  31. 

From  the  time  of  his  resurrection  till  that  coming,  the  power  which  brought 
him  again  from  the  dead  was  Avorking  both  in  this  world  and  in  hades.  We 
know,  by  the  testimony  of  the  apostles,  that  the  visible  part  of  the  church  in 
the  interval  between  Christ's  rising  and  his  second  advent,  w^ere  in  a  species 
of  resurrection.  That  quickening  of  the  Spirit,  which  they  sometimes  call 
regeneration  or  the  second  birth,  they  constantly  ascribe  to  the  power  of 
Christ's  resurrection.  See  Rom.  6:  4,  Eph.  2:  1 — 6.  As  the  living  and 
the  dead  were  to  be  perfected  and  '  caught  up  together''  at  the  final  scene, 
(see  ICor.  15:  52,  IThess.  4:  17,)  so  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  parallel 
operation  of  the  resurrection-power  was  in  progress  at  the  same  time  in  the 
invisible  part  of  the  church.  The  saints  in  hades  as  well  as  those  in  this 
world,  were  receiving  the  long-promised  new  covenant— the  power  to  become 
the  sons  of  God.  In  the  11th  chapter  of  Hebrews  Paul  says  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament saints,  including  even  Enoch,  and  Moses,  and  Elijah, — '  These  all 
having  obtained  a  good  report  through  faith,  received  not  the  promise :  God 
having  provided  some  better  thing  for  us,  that  they  without  US  should 
NOT  BE  MADE  PERFECT.'  Yer.  39:  40.  This  is  positive  testimony  to  the  fact 
that  the  new  covenant  (which  the  apostle  speaks  of  as  '  the  promise')  was 
not  given  to  the  invisible  church,  till  it  was  given  to  the  apostles  and  their 
followers.  The  saints  in  both  apartments  of  humanity  received  the  power  of 
the  resurrection,  and  were  ripened  for  the  second  advent,  together.  They 
that  sowed  and  they  that  reaped,  rejoiced  together  in  the  harvest.  (See  John 
4:  36—38.) 

The  correspondence  of  state  and  progress  which  thus  manifestly  existed 
between  the  visible  and  the  invisible  part  of  the  church,  allows  us  to  reason 
from  the  one  to  the  other.  On  the  one  hand,  as  there  was  a  partial  resurrec- 
tion of  the  saints  in  this  world  in  the  apostoHc  age,  so  there  was  a  partial 
resurrection  of  the  saints  in  hades.  But  on  the  other,  as  that  resurrection, 
in  the  one  case,  was  not  complete  till  the  second  advent,  so  it  was  not  in  the 
other.     And  further,  as  the  tares  and  the  wheat  remained  together  in  the 


OBJECTIONS.  875 

Visible  field  till  the  harvest,  so  it  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  they  remained  to- 
gether in  the  invisible  field.  Indeed  we  have  apostolic  authority  for  the  as- 
sertion that  '  spiritual  Avickedness'  existed  in  the  '  heavenly  places,'  (^epou- 
ra7iia,')  and  that  the  man  of  sin  was  revealed,  even  in  '  the  temple  of  God,' 
(which  of  course  stands  on  Mount  Zion  in  the  spiritual  Jerusalem,)  in  the 
interval  between  the  first  and  second  coming  of  Christ.  The  time  of  judgment, 
when  '  all  things  that  ofiend  and  them  that  do  iniquity'  were  to  be  gathered 
out  of  the  kingdom,  did  not  come  to  the  saints,  either  in  mortality  or  hades, 
till  their  resurrection  was  completed  by  the  personal  coming  of  Christ.  Pre- 
vious  to  that  time,  Christ,  having  attached  the  power  of  his  resurrection  to 
both  departments  of  humanity,  and  being  '  exalted'  to  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father,  was  '  drawing  men  unto  him.'  At  that  time,  the  approximation  of  the 
church,  visible  and  invisible,  having  proceeded  far  enough  for  his  purpose, 
he  descended  into  it  with  the  glory  of  the  Father  and  the  power  of  all  the 
angels,  judged  and  destroyed  the  man  of  sin,  purged  the  spiritual  Jerusalem 
of '  the  uncircumcised  and  the  unclean,'  and  ascending  with  it,  presented  it 
as  his  bride  to  the  Father.  Thus  the  human  and  angelic  heavens  became  one. 
With  this  outline  before  us,  we  are  prepared  for  an  examination  of  the  three 
objections  alluded  to  in  the  beginning  of  this  article. 

1.  The  resurrection  of  saints  at  the  time  of  Chrisfs  rising.  Matt.  27: 
51 — 53.  In  order  that  the  objection  in  this  case  may  have  any  force,  it  must 
be  averred  that  this  was  a  complete  and  final  resurrection.  If  it  was,  then 
some  of  the  saints  rose  before  the  second  coming,  and  Paul's  designation  of  the 
time  of  the  rising  of  the  living  and  the  dead  in  1  Cor.  15:  23 — 52,  1  Thess, 
4:  16,  &c.,  is  falsified.  But  to  this  averment  we  reply — There  is  no  evidence 
that  the  saints,  whose  resurrrction  is  in  question,  ascended  to  the  Father,  It 
is  only  said  that  they  '  came  out  of  their  graves  and  went  into  the  holy  city 
and  appeared  unto  many.'  So  far  they  followed  Christ  in  his  ascent.  He 
came  out  of  his  grave,  went  to  Jerusalem,  and  appeared  to  many.  But  in 
his  case,  this  was  only  half  of  the  resurrection.  He  had  not  yet  ascended  to 
the  Father  and  taken  his  place  in  the  angelic  heaven.  If  it  were  declared 
that,  at  the  time  when  he  was  received  up  into  glory,  these  saints  ivere  also 
received  up  ivith  him,  ^Ye  should  be  obliged  to  admit  that  they  entered  the 
resurrection-sanctuary  previous  to  the  second  advent.  But  in  the  absence 
of  any  such  declaration,  we  are  at  liberty  and  are  bound  to  adhere  to  the 
general  testimony  of  the  apostles,  which  assigns  the  final  resurrection  of  the 
church,  visible  and  invisible,  to  the  period  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
If  it  is  asked,  What  was  the  state  of  these  saints  from  the  time  of  their  par- 
tial resurrection  till  the  second  coming,  all  we  need  to  answer,  is,  that  they 
were  in  a  state  intermediate  between  the  repose  of  hades  and  the  glory  of  the 
Father.  That  there  was  such  an  intermediate  state,  is  proved  by  the  facts  in 
the  case  of  Christ. 

2.  PauVs  desire  to  depart  and  he  tvith  Christ.  Phil.  1:  21 — 23,  2  Cor. 
6:  6 — 8.  The  objection  is,  that  the  apostle  evidently  expected  to  enter 
fully  the  resurrection  state  at  once,  on  leaving  the  body.  But  the  reader 
^vill  perceive,  on  examining  the  passages  on  which  this  objection  is  founded, 
that  there  is  no  distinct  declaration  of  any  such  expectation.      The  '  gain' 


376  OBJECTIONS. 

which  he  looked  for  in  dying,  was  not  immediate  admittance  to  the  glory  of 
the  Father  and  the  holy  angels,  but  the  enjoyment  of  the  presence  of  Christ* 
Now  if  it  is  in  any  way  supposable  that  there  was  a  more  full  enjoyment  of 
the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  intermediate  abode  of  the  disembodied  saints 
than  there  was  in  this  world,  (though  neither  of  these  apartments  was  the 
resurrection-sanctuary,)  we  can  allow  a  full  meaning  to  Paul's  words,  and 
yet  maintain  that  he  did  not  expect  the  full  resurrection  till  the  second  com- 
ing. And  we  are  bound  to  seek  for  such  a  method  of  conciliation ;  for 
without  it  the  apostle  contradicts  himself,  inasmuch  as  he  unequivocally  and 
repeatedly  affirms  elsewhere  that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  as  well  as  the 
change  of  the  hving,  was  to  take  place  at  the  personal  coming  of  Christ,  at 
the  close  of  the  Jewish  dispensation.  The  passages  now  in  question  are 
doubtful,  since  they  speak  not  distinctly  of  the  resurrection,  but  only  of  the 
presence  of  Christ.  Whereas  such  passages  as  1  Cor.  15:  23,  are  plain  and 
unmistakable  declarations  that  the  resurrection  of  the  saints  should  take  place 
at  the  second  advent— not  sooner,  nor  later.  The  plain  passages  must  gov- 
ern our  construction  of  the  doubtful. 

We  have  said  that  the  paradise  of  hades  was  properly  called  heaven  in  a 
relative  sense,  i.  e.,  as  compared  with  this  world.  It  was  a  state  more  purely 
spiritual,  and  nearer  to  God,  than  that  of  flesh  and  blood.  This  accounts  for 
the  fact  which  is  suggested  in  a  variety  of  passages  in  the  New  Testament, 
that  '  the  dead  in  Christ  rose  first^  at  the  last  trump.  The  resurrection- 
power  took  effect  first  on  those  who  were  in  a  state  nearest  akin  to  it.  The 
church  of  the  disembodied  saints  was  the  touching-point  (so  to  speak)  of  the 
attracting  energy  which  drew  men  up  from  hades  and  mortality.  As  in  the 
individual,  Christ's  spiritual  presence  is  in  the  soul  more  than  in  the  body ; 
BO  in  the  church  of  the  first-born,  his  spiritual  presence  was  in  the  invisible, 
more  than  in  the  visible  department.  Paul's  wish  then  to  depart  and  be  with 
Christ,  may  be  understood  as  simply  a  wish  to  pass  from  the  body  to  the  soul 
of  the  church,  where  the  power  of  Christ  was  most  manifested.  Even  if  it  is 
insisted  that  his  words  refer  to  the  personal  presence  of  Christ,  we  may  show 
by  help  of  the  same  theory  of  the  disembodied  state,  that  this  is  not  inconsis- 
tent with  what  he  says  elsewhere  concerning  the  resurrection  at  the  second 
coming.  Christ's  personal  presence  certainly  was  not  confined  to  the  angelic 
heaven  during  the  apostolic  age.  He  appeared  to  Paul,  in  one  instance  at 
least,  at  Jerusalem.  Acts  22:  18.  And  if  he  thus  revisited  mortality,  it  is 
not  to  be  doubted  that  he  also  appeared  personally  in  the  abode  of  the  disem- 
bodied saints*  Indeed  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  he  was  in  frequent  and 
perhaps  constant  personal  communication  with  paradise,  as  that  was  the  most 
spiritual  department  of  the  church,  and  the  point  of  contact  for  his  attraction. 
In  saying  then  that  he  desired  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ,  Paul  meant,  at 
the  most,  only  that  he  desired  to  join  the  invisible  church,  with  which  Christ 
was  in  personal  communication.  He  did  not  mean  to  imply  that  that  church 
had  ascended  to  the  Father,  or  that  he  expected  to  enter  the  final  resurrec* 
tion  before  the  second  advent. 

3.  The  silence  of  the  New  Testament  in  regard  to  the  resurrection  of  the 
wicked  at  the  second  coming.      This  objection  will  disappear,  if  we  keep  in 


OBJECTIONS.  S77 

mind  the  leading  idea  of  tlie  resurrection  which  has  been  brought  to  view  in 
our  previous  outline.  The  resurrection,  in  the  general  sense  of  the  word, 
as  pertaining  to  both  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  is  a'  transition  from  the 
recesses  of  hades  and  mortality  to  the  presence  of  the  Father  and  his  holy 
angels.  In  the  case  of  the  righteous,  this  presentation  to  the  Father  is 
followed  by  a  judicial  acquittal  and  an  eternal  residence  in  the  angelic 
heaven.  In  the  case  of  the  wicked,  it  is  followed  by  condemnation  and 
eternal  banishment  '  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his 
power.'  But  these  diverse  sequences  belong  to  the  judgment.  The  resur- 
rection, i.  e.  introduction  to  the  presence  of  God,  in  both  cases  is  the  same. 

Now  let  us  see  if  the  New  Testament  descriptions  of  the  second  coming  do 
not  indicate  that  a  portion  of  the  wicked  as  well  as  the  righteous,  were  ushered 
into  the  presence  of  God  by  that  event.  In  Rev.  6:  12 — 17,  (which  is  a 
description  of  the  second  coming,  copied  chiefly  from  Matt.  24:  29 — 31,) 
we  are  informed  that,  at  the  appearing  of  the  Son  of  man,  '  the  kings  of  the 
earth,  and  the  great  men,  &c.,  hid  themselves  in  the  dens  and  in  the  rocks 
of  the  mountains,  and  said  to  the  mountains  and  rocks,  Fall  on  us,  and  hide 
us  fr  0711  the  face  of  him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne^  and  from  the  wrath  of 
the  Lamb.''  Here  is  certainly  an  '  awaking  to  shame  and  contempt' — a  com- 
ing forth  '  to  the  resurrection  of  damnation.'  So  in  2  Thess.  2:  1 — 12, 
(which  relates  to  the  period  when  the  dead  in  Christ  were  to  be  raised  and 
the  living  changed,  as  will  be  seen  by  comparing  it  with  1  Thess.  4: 15 — 17,) 
we  learn  that  the  man  of  sin  was  to  be  'destroyed  by  the  brightness  of  Christ's 
coming,'  and  that  they  in  whom  he  worked  his  delusions  were  to  perish  with 
him. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked  to  damnation  is  involved 
in  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  to  salvation.  The  same  attracting  energy 
which,  during  the  apostolic  age,  drew  the  church,  visible  and  invisible,  toward 
Christ,  also  necessarily  drew  with  that  church  the  evil  spirits  which  were 
mixed  with  it.  Until  the  tares  and  the  wheat  are  separated,  whatever  is  done 
to  the  wheat  must  also  take  effect  on  the  tares.  And  in  the  case  of  the 
church  of  the  first-born,  the  tares  were  not  separated  from  the  wheat,  as  we 
have  seen,  till  both  were  brought  up  to  the  tribunal  of  the  Father.  The  very 
object  of  the  judgment,  which  is  subsequent  to  the  resurrection,  is  the  separa- 
tion of  the  righteous  from  the  wicked.  If  Christ  would  give  rest  to  his  saints, 
he  must  purge  out  from  among  them  '  all  things  that  offend,  and  them  that  do 
iniquity  ;'  and  for  this  purpose,  he  must  bring  the  mixed  mass  of  spirits  with 
which  they  are  incorporated,  into  the  blaze  of  his  presence.  The  gold  can  be 
separated  from  the  dross,  only  by  subjecting  both  to  the  action  of  fire.  Tliis 
principle  makes  it  as  certain  that  a  portion  of  the  wicked  entered  the  resur- 
rection of  damnation  at  the  second  coming,  as  that  the  true  church  then  enter- 
ed the  resurrection  of  life. 

But  how  are  we  to  understand  the  statement  in  Rev.  20,  that  *  the  rest  of 
the  dead  [i.  e.  all  except  those  who  had  part  in  the  blessed  resurrection] 
lived  not  again  till  the  thousand  years  were  finished.'  To  this  we  answer — 
The  righteous  only  '  came  forth  to  the  resurrection  of  life.^  The  wicked 
were  brought  into  the  presence  of  God.  and  that  was  their  resurrection.  But 
47 


S78  REVIEW  Of  BALLOU    ON   THE  RESUllRECtlOS'. 

they  did  not  enter  into  life*  On  the  contrary,  the  fire  which  purged  th<? 
Hghteous,  destroyed  them,  and  they  were  thenceforth  twice  dead.  They  did 
not  remain  in  the  presence  of  the  Father,  hut  were  judged  and  cast  into  outer 
darkness.  '  The  kingdom  of  heaven,'  says  Christ, '  is  Hke  unto  a  net  that 
was  cast  into  the  sea  [which  represents  the  attracting  power  of  Christ's  resur- 
rection] and  gathered  of  every  kind  ;  which  when  it  was  full  they  drew  to 
the  shore,  and  sat  down,  and  gathered  the  good  into  vessels,  but  ca^^t  the  bad 
aivay,  [probably  back  into  the  sea.]  So  shall  it  be  at  the  end  of  the  aion, 
[i.  e.  the  Jewish  age.  See  1  Cor.  10:  11,  Heb.  9:  26.]  The  angels  shall 
come  forth  and  sever  the  wicked  from  among  the  just,  and  shall  cast  them 
into  a  furnace  of  fire.'  Matt.  13:  47 — 50.  The  resurrection  to  damnation 
is  not  taken  into  the  account  as  a  form  of  life,  in  Rev.  20.  The  assertion 
that '  the  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not,'  simply  means  that  there  was  no  further 
awaking  from  the  sleep  of  hades,  till  the  thousand  years  were  finished. 


§  54.  REVIEW  OF  BALLOU  ON  THE  RESURRECTION. 

Having  proved  that  the  '  first  resurrection'  took  place  at  the  end  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  it  is  now  time  to  inquii'e  whether  there  has  been  any  res- 
urrection since,  and  when  the  final  resurrection  may  be  expected.  Prof.  Bush, 
and  Adin  Ballon,  have  both  taken  the  position  that  since  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  the  resurrection  has  been  a  continuous  process,  taking  effect  on 
each  individual  at  death*  Indeed  Mr.  Bush,  with  much  detriment  to  his  con- 
sistency^  maintains,  on  the  whole,  that  the  resurrection  has  been  a  continuous 
process  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  With  these  theories  we  join  issue, 
and  aver,  1,  that  there  was  no  resurrection  till  the  end  of  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation ;  2,  that  there  was  then  a  simultaneous  resurrection  of '  many ;'  3,  that 
there  has  been  no  resurrection  since ;  and  4,  that  a  simultaneous  gene- 
ral resurrection  of  the  human  race  is  yet  to  come.  The  first  two  of  these 
propositions  wo  have  alread}'-  suflSciently  discussed.  The  following  remarks 
on  a  pamphlet  pubhshed  by  Adin  Ballon  in  1843,  in  which  the  doctrine  of  a 
continuous  resurrection  was  propounded,  present  the  principal  Bible  evidence 
bearing  on  the  3d  and  4th  of  the  above  averments. 

When  we  have  ascertained  that  the  Second  advent  of  Christ,  with  a  resur* 
rection  and  judgment,  did  certainly  take  place  immediately  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  if  we  have  not  been  accustomed  to  conceive  of  the  judgment 
in  two  acts,  and  have  not  in  our  minds  the  evidence  of  a  second  judgment, 
we  very  naturally  hasten  to  the  conclusion  that  those  who  have  lived  and  died 
since  the  period  of  the  second  advent,  have  been  raised  and  judged  succes- 
sively, as  they  entered  the  invisible  wofld.  They  must  have  part  in  the 
I'esurrection  and  judgment,  and  we  naturally  ask'— If  the  court  of  heaven 
commenced  its  session  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  how  can  they 
be  raised  and  judged  otherwise  than  in  succession  as  they  die  ? 

One  formidable  objection  faces  this  theory  at  the  outset,  viz.  there  is 


REVIEW  OF  BALLOU  ON  THE  RESURRECTION.  379 

not  a  particle  of  direct  evidence  for  it  in  scripture.  It  is  simply  an  inference; 
€ind  though  its  advocates  may  say  it  is  a  reasonable  inference,  yet  in  a  mat- 
ter so  important,  Bible  reasoners  will  not  be  satisfied  so  far  as  to  foreclose 
further  investigation,  without  direct  testimony.  We  have  searched  through 
the  Bible,  and  through  Mr.  Ballou's  pamphlet,  for  texts  directly  asserting  or 
plainly  intimating  the  continuation  of  the  resurrection  and  judgment  through 
successive  age?,  and  we  have  found  none.  In  fact,  though  Mr.  Ballon  gives 
great  prominence  to  this  doctrine  in  his  initial  statement,  he  no  where  pre- 
sents the  proof  of  it  under  a  distinct  head.  The  nearest  approach  which  we 
find  in  the  pamphlet  to  the  citation  of  proof  texts  on  this  point,  is  in  the  foL 
lowing  instances,  which  occur  incidentally: — 

"  The  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we 
[who  shall  be  alive  at  that  time,  with  all  who  shall  live  afterwards  in  the  flesh,] 
shall  be  changed"  [instantly  at  death  and  enter  the  immortal  state.]    1  Cor.  15: 

51,  52 "  This  we  say  unto  you  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,  that  we  which 

are  alive,  and  remain  unto  the  corning  of  the  Lord,  shall  not  prevent  [precede 
or  go  before]  them  which  are  asleep.  For  the  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from 
heaven  [in  the  invisible  world]  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the  archangel, 
and  with  the  trump  of  God  :  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first.  Then  [from 
and  after  that  time]  we  which  are  alive  and  remain  [on  the  earth]  shall  [at  the 
moment  of  our  death,  without  sleeping  at  all,  or  descending  like  the  dead  of  all 
past  Pges  into  hades]  be  caught  up  together  with  them  in  the  clouds  ;  [the  im^ 
mortal  state  ;]  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord." 

This  is  evidently  an  adaptation  of  texts  to  a  theory  previously  assumed, — - 
not  fair  proof  of  that  theory.  We  cannot  at  all  admit  the  legitimacy  of  the 
interpolations. 

Having  proved  that  Christ  came  and  commenced  the  judgment  at  thQ 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  Mr.  Ballou's  inference  is,  that  with  reference  to 
subsequent  generations  that  judgment  was  continuous.  But  there  is  rooni 
for  two  other  inferences.  We  may  suppose  first  that  the  subsequent  genera^ 
tions  have  no  part  in  the  resurrection  and  judgment ;  or  secondly,  that  there 
is  to  be  another  distinct  judgment  for  those  generations,  at  the  end  of  the 
'  times  of  the  Gentiles.'  Even  the  first  of  these  suppositions,  improbable  as 
it  is,  has  as  much  scripture  proof  in  its  favor  as  the  theory  we  are  considering, 
—that  is,  none  at  all.  But  the  second  supposition— that  of  a  second  judg- 
ment—we may  confidently  assert,  before  entering  the  field  of  Bible  proof,  is 
at  least  as  probable,  in  itself  considered,  as  the  supposition  of  a  continuous 
judgment.  If  we  had  nothing  before  us  but  the  history  of  the  Jewish  and 
(xentile  dispensations,  with  the  fact  proved  that  Christ  came  to  judgment  at 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  we  should  infer  with  strong  confidence  that  there 
would  be  a  second  distinct  judgment.  Our  reasoning  would  run  Ihus:  The 
judgment  is  like  a  harvest,— the  speedy  gathering  of  fruits  that  have  been  long 
growing.  The  Jewish  nation  was  the  field  which  God  cultivated  for  two 
thousand  years.  At  the  judgment  of  the  second  advent  that  field  was  reaped. 
Then  the  Gentiles  came  under  a  similar  process  of  cultivation,  Now  which 
is  most  rational,  to  suppose  that  the  reapers  would  be  kept  at  work  on  this 
second  field  through  seedtime  and  summer,  till  harvest, — -or  that  the  reaping 
would  be  deferred,  as  in  the  former  case,  for  two  thousand  years,  (or  th^re* 


380  REVIEW  OF  BALLOU    ON  THE  RESURRECTION. 

aboutSj)  till  the  grain  should  be  ripe,  and  then  be  done  all  at  once  ?  Or  if 
we  compare  the  judgment  to  a  reckoning,  and  settlement  of  accounts,  there 
is  a  manifest  propriety  that  there  should  be  two  distinct  judgments,  one  for 
the  Jews  and  the  other  for  the  Gentiles ;  since  the  accounts  of  these  two  par- 
ties are  very  different,  and  one  of  them  only  commenced  special  dealings 
with  God  at  the  time  when  the  other  was  called  to  settlement.  We  admit, 
all  this  is  no  'proofs  but  it  is  ground  of  presumption,  which  in  our  view  gives 
the  theory  of  two  judgments  the  advantage  over  that  of  one  protracted  judg- 
ment, even  if  the  former  were,  like  the  latter,  unsustained  by  direct  scripture 
testimony. 

But  let  us  go  to  the  Bible.  And  first,  we  have  a  few  remarks  to  make  on 
the  book  of  Eevelations.  Mr.  Ballon,  on  the  authority  of  Dr.  Lardner,  re- 
gards that  book  as  of  doubtful  authority.  Of  course,  he  admits  that  it  may 
he  a  part  of  the  true  word  of  God.  Yet  he  sets  up  a  theory  which  is  confes- 
sedly at  variance  with  that  book,  as  appears  from  the  following  passage  in 
his  pamphlet : 

"  Objection. — Your  doctrine  sets  aside  the  *  first  resurrection,'  and  the  mil- 
lennium^ predicted  in  the  20th  chapter  of  Revelations.  Answer. — It  does;  but 
it  holds  forth  a  *  resurrection  of  the  just,'  and  an  ultimate  reign  of  righteousness, 
far  more  excellent  and  glorious  than  any  described  in  that  chapter." 

Now  our  theory  exactly  harmonizes  with  the  book  of  Revelations.  Of  course, 
whatever  weight  of  evidence  there  is  in  favor  of  the  canonicity  of  that  book, 
is  in  favor  of  our  theory,  and  directly  opposed  to  Mr.  Ballou's.  The  doc- 
trine of  two  judgments  is  certainly  true,  if  the  Apocalypse  is  an  inspired 
book ;  and  it  may  be  true — as  we  shall  soon  show — if  that  book  is  a  forgery. 
While  on  the  other  hand,  if  that  book  should  be  proved  to  be  the  word  of 
God,  Mr.  Ballou's  doctrine  must  be  false.  This  view  of  the  matter  at  least 
strengthens  the  presumption  and  advantage  we  have  before  gained  for  our 
doctrine.     We  have  a  very  important  may  be  on  our  side. 

But  Mr.  Ballon  thinks  we  build  too  exclusively  on  this  doubtful  book,  and 
insists  that  the  current  of  the  other  inspired  writings  is  against  us.  After 
the  remark  above  quoted,  he  proceeds  as  follows  : 

"  It  must  be  considered  that  this  is  the  only  chapter  in  all  the  Bible  which 
even  intimates  that  a  part  of  the  dead  are  to  rise  one  thousand  years  before  the 
rest ;  or  that  there  is  to  be  a  thousand  years  reign  of  the  saints  with  Christ ;  or 
that  Satan  is  to  be  shut  up  in  prison  a  thousand  years,  and  afterwards  loosed  for 
a  season  before  the  general  resurrection.  The  ancient  prophets  say  no  such 
thing — Christ  hints  no  such  thing.  The  other  New  Testament  writers  do  not 
lisp  it.'  But  it  is  contrary  to  their  uniform  representations  of  the  resurrection 
and  final  judgment." 

If  we  understand  the  purport  of  this,  it  places  the  book  of  Revelations  in 
positive  antagonism  to  the  rest  of  the  Bible  ;  of  course,  it  makes  it  worse  than 
a  doubtful  book.  But  let  us  see  if  we  cannot  redeem  its  character.  We 
take  issue  with  Mr.  Ballon  on  the  ground  he  has  chosen,  and  rest  our  case  on 
the  testimony  of  the  Bible  without  the  Apocalypse. 

1.  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  24th  and  25th  of  Matthew,  describes  two  distinct 
judgments.  The  first  judgment  is  represented  as  taking  place  in  immediate 
connection  with  the  second  advent.     '  Immediately  after  the  tribulation  of 


REVIEW   OF  BALLOU   ON  THE  RESURRECTION.  881 

those  days  shall  the  sun  be  darkened,  ....  and  then  shall  appear  the  sign 
of  the  Son  of  man  ;  .  .  .  .  and  he  shall  send  his  angels  with  a  great  sound 
of  a  trumpet ;  and  they  shall  gather  together  his  elect  from  the  four  winds, 
from  one  end  of  the  heaven  to  the  other.'  Matt.  24: 29-31.  This  cannot  be  a 
continuous  gathering,  extending  thro'  the  ages  of  the  Son's  regency,  because 
Christ  says  immediately  after — '  This  generation  shall  not  pass  till  all  these 
things  be  fulfilled.'  The  fact  that  it  w^as  a  temporary,  and  not  a  continuous 
gathering,  is  also  manifest  from  the  parable  of  the  ten  virgins,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  next  chapter.  '  Then  [i.  e.  at  the  second  advent]  shall  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  be  likened  unto  ten  virgins  which  took  their  lamps  and  went 
forth  to  meet  the  bridegTOom.  .  .  .  And  while  they  [the  foohsh  virgins] 
went  to  buy,  the  bridegroom  came,  and  they  that  were  ready  went  in  with 
him  to  the  marriage,  and  the  door  was  shut.^  Matt.  25:  1, 10.  This  plainly 
teaches  that  the  glorious  presence  of  Christ  in  his  second  advent,  would 
be  accessible  only  for  a  short  season.  They  that  were  then  ready,  went  in 
unto  the  privileges  of  the  resurrection,  and  the  rest  were  excluded.  'The 
door  was  shut.'  Here  manifestly  was  the  end  of  the  first  judgment.  In  the 
31st  verse  following,  Christ  introduces  a  second  judgment.  '  When  the  Son 
of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  .  .  .  [having  gathered  in  the  elect]  he  shall 
sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory ;  [and  the  twelve  apostles,  with  those  that 
were  ready  at  the  first  gathering,  shall  sit  with  him,  see  Matt.  19:  28, 1  Cor. 
6:  2  ;]  and  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  nations,  and  he  shall  separate 
them  one  from  another.  .  .  .  Then  [after  these  gi*eat  preparatory  transac- 
tions, which  necessarily  occupy  the  whole  period  of  the  Son's  regency,]  shall 
he  say.  Come,  ye  blessed,  .  .  .  and  .  .  .  depart,  ye  cursed.'  Matt.  25: 
31 — 46.  Here  at  last  the  door  of  the  marriage  supper  is  again  opened  to 
them  that  are  ready,  and  again  shut  against  the  foolish  virgins.  Taking  into 
account  the  fact  that  in  this  same  discourse  Christ  pointed  his  disciples  for- 
ward to  the  long  period  of  '  the  times  of  the  Gentiles,'  (Luke  21:  24,)  which 
must  necessarily  precede  the  '  gathering  of  all  nations  before  his  throne,'  we 
think  he  at  least  '  hints'-  at  a  series  of  events  corresponding  to  those  described 
in  the  20th  of  Revelations — viz.,  a  primary  resurrection  of  '  the  elect,  a  long 
interval  in  which  '  the  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not,'  (the  door  was  shut,)  and 
a  final  gathering,  resurrection  and  judgment  of  all* nations. 

2.  Paul  describes  the  resurrection  in  exact  accordance  with  the  testimony 
of  Christ.  '  Every  man  [shall  be  raised]  in  his  own  order :  Christ  the  first- 
fruits  ;  afterward  they  that  are  Christ's  ['  the  elect'  spoken  of  in  Matt.  24: 
31]  at  his  coming ;  then  [i.  e.  next]  cometh  the  end  [of  the  resurrection, 
i.  e.  the  final  resurrection,]  when  he  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  the 
Father ;'  [i.  e.  after  his  mediatorial  reign.]  1  Cor.  15:  23 — 28.  Here  are 
three  items.  The  particle  which  separates  the  third  from  the  second,  has 
the  same  force  as  that  which  separates  the  second  from  the  first.*     Now  it  is 

*  The  word  translated  then_  is  eita,  and  that  translated  aftencard,  in  the  23d  verse,  is 
ejycita,  Eita  is  the  word  translated  then  in  1  Tim.  2:  13.  '  Adam  was  first  formed,  then 
Eve.'  So  it  occurs  twice  in  Mark  4:  28.  '  First  (he  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full  corn 
in  the  ear.'  In  1  Cor.  12:  28,  both  of  the  words  which  designate  the  succession  in 
1  Cor.  15:  24,  occur  in  exactly  the  same  order.  'God  halh  set  in  the  church,  lirst, 
anostles;  secondly,  prophets;  thirdly,  teachers;  aftaxcard  \_epeita^  miYSic\cs;  then  [eitd\ 
gifts  of  healing-,'  &c.     Compare  with  this  the  passage  in  question  : — *  Christ  the  first- 


882  REVIEW  OF  BALLOU    ON  THE  RESURRECTION. 

undeniable  that  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  a  transaction  perfectly  distinct 
from  the  resurrection  of  the  saints  at  the  second  advent,  and  separated  from 
it  by  a  considerable  interval  of  time.  With  equal  reason,  the  language  of 
Paul  requires  us  to  distinguish  between  the  resurrection  of  the  second  advent 
and  the  final  resurrection ;  and  to  place  the  long  interval  of  the  mediatorial 
reign  between  them.  We  will  not  dwell  on  this  point,  as  we  have  already 
discussed  it  at  some  length.  (See  the  article  on  '  The  Millennium,'  p.  334.) 
We  think  it  safe  to  say  that  Paul  at  least  '  lisps'  something  about  two  res- 
urrections :  and  when  we  consider  that  he  also  foresaw  and  predicted  the 
^  times  of  the  Gentiles,'  (Rom.  11:  25,)  we  are  constrained  to  believe  that, 
in  his  own  mind,  he  placed  the  two  resurrections  in  an  order  and  relation 
somewhat  similar  to  that  described  in  the  20th  of  Revelations. 

Here  let  it  be  noticed  that  the  two  representations  we  have  examined, 
(Matt.  24  &  25,  and  1  Cor.  15,)  are  the  only  instances  in  which  any  of  the 
New  Testament  writers  (excepting,  of  course,  the  revelator,)  undertake  to 
give  a  complete  prophetical  detail  of  the  resurrection  and  judgment.  All  the 
evidence,  therefore,  in  the  New  Testament,  that  bears  on  the  point,  confirms 
Revelations  20th. 

3.  Several  of  the  prophets  describe  two  judgments.  (1)  In  the  12th 
chapter  of  Daniel,  we  have  an  account  of  a  resurrection  of  *  many,'  (not  of 
all  mankind,)  which  was  to  take  place  at  the  time  of  the  great  tribulation' — 
not  continuously  through  many  ages.  According  to  Mr.  Ballou's  own  prin- 
ciples of  interpretation,  this  resurrection  was  to  be  'finished  within  three  and 
a  half  literal  years  from  the  period  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  See  ver.  7. 
It  should  be  observed  that  Daniel's  language  plainly  characterizes  this  as  dis- 
tinctively a  Jewish  resurrection.  '  At  that  time,  thy  people  shall  be  deliver- 
ed,' &c.  Ver.  1.  In  two  previous  instances  (Dan.  2:  44,  &  7:  26)  he 
describes  another  judgment,  which  comes  after  the  division  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  and  which  manifestly  pertains  to  all  nations.  (2)  Joel,  in  the  latter 
part  of  his  second  chapter  cursorily  describes  the  judgment  of  the  second  ad- 
vent and  the  deliverance  of  '  the  elect.'  In  the  third  chapter,  he  predicts 
specifically  the  gathering  of  all  nations  and  the  final  judgment,  after  the  'times 
of  the  Gentiles.'  (3)  Zachariah,  in  his  13th  chapter,  and  the  beginning  of 
the  14th,  predicts  the  events  of  Christ's  ministry  and  the  apostohc  age,  ter- 
minating in  the  first  resurrection  and  judgment,  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem. Then  he  goes  on  to  describe  a  subsequent  war  with  the  Gentiles,  ter- 
minating in  another  judgment ;  after  which  '  the  Lord  shall  be  king  over  all 
the  earth.'     Ver.  3—9. 

We  trust  the  foregoing  suggestions  will  be  sufficient  to  convince  those  who 
fairly  masticate  and  digest  them,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  20th  chapter  of 
Revelations  is  in  full  harmony  with  the  '  uniform  representations'  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments. 

fruits;  afterward  \^cpeita\  they  that  are  Christ's,  at  his  coming-;  then  [^eita']  the  end,' — 
The  word  comcth  is  interpolated  in  the  translation.  That  perhaps  contributes  to  raise 
a  false  distinction  between  the  third  item  and  the  other  two.  It  is  clear  from  the  above 
examples,  and  from  all  the  circumstances  of  tiie  case,  that  eita  has  the  same  force  as 
epeita,  and  marks  off  '  the  end  '  from  the  resurrection  at  Christ's  coming,  exactly  as  epeitri 
marks  off  the  latter  from  Christ's  resurrection.  Prof  Stuart  has  endorsed  this  view,  in 
his  late  Commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  ;  and  he  is  deep  enough  in  Greek  to  be  good 
authority  in  such  a  matter. 


^t 


§  55.    THE  CONNECTION  OF  REGENERATION  WITH  THE 
RESURRECTION. 

To  those  who  are  familiar  with  our  writings,  it  will  be  unnecessary  for  us  to 
prove  that  the  New  Testament  constantly  ascribes  regeneration  to  the  power 
of  Christ's  resurrection.  If  any  need  proof  on  this  point,  they  may  be  referred 
to  Rom.  6:  5—10,  2  Cor.  5:  14—17,  Eph.  1:  19,  20,  Col.  2:  12,  13. 
From  these  and  many  other  passages  it  is  evident  that  regeneration  is,  prop- 
erly  speaking,  the  resurrection  of  the  spirit,  and  is  effected  by  the  same  power 
that  finally  raises  the  body  to  immortal  glory.  In  the  primitive  church  the 
resurrection  of  the  spirit  was  the  antecedent  condition  of  the  complete  resur- 
rection at  the  coming  of  the  Lord.  After  his  own  resurrection,  and  after  the 
commencement  of  the  operation  of  the  resurrection-power  on  the  church, 
Christ  delayed  his  personal  advent  forty  years,  manifestly  because,  in  right 
order,  the  spirit  should  first  be  quickened,  and  afterward  the  body  :  and  the 
resurrection-power  could  best  take  effect  on  the  spirit  through  the  truth,  in 
the  absence  of  Christ,  while  its  complete  effect  on  the  body  required  his  per- 
sonal presence.  Thus  the  resurrection  at  the  second  advent  was  '  but  the 
completed  issue'  of  the  spiritual  quickening  which  preceded  it  during  the  apos- 
tohc  age. 

Assuming  then  that  a  ministration  of  regeneration  is  the  inseparable  ante- 
cedent of  a  resurrection,  it  is  obvious  that,  in  order  to  find  the  points  on  the 
chart  of  time  where  resurrections  have  occurred  or  shall  occur,  we  have  only 
to  ascertain  where  there  has  been  or  is  to  be  a  ministration  of  regeneration 
going  before.  Wherever  we  see  the  fig-tree  of  spiritual  life  budding,  we  may 
be  sure  that  the  summer  of  the  resurrection  is  near.  With  this  rule  for  our 
guidance,  we  may  safely  say  at  once  that  there  was  no  resurrection  before  the 
coming  of  Christ.  Regeneration,  as  a  doctrine,  or  as  a  fact,  was  not  devel* 
oped  in  the  times  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  we  have  fully  shown  in  the 
article  on  the  Second  Birth,  p.  223.  The  simple  truth  that  regeneration  is 
effected  by  the  power  of  Christ's  resurrection,  is  sufficient  to  preclude  the  idea 
that  any  were  ever  bom  of  God  till  Christ  arose  from  the  dead,  unless  we 
commit  the  absurdity  of  supposing  that  an  effect  may  precede  its  cause.  As 
there  was  no  regeneration  under  the  first  covenant,  so,  according  to  our  rule^ 
there  was  no  resurrection. 

During  the  apostolic  age  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  was  developed,  and 
men  were  born  of  God.  Accordingly  the  first  resurrection  occurred  at  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  So  far  we  advance,  in  the  history  of  the  world 
with  reference  to  regeneration  and  the  resurrection,  under  the  safe  guidance 
of  the  Bible. 

We  are  now  to  try  the  question  whether  there  has  been  any  resurrection 
since  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  by  inquiring  whether  there  has  been  a 
ministration  of  regeneration  since  that  event.  In  this  inquiry,  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  case  we  cannot  appeal  to  the  Bible  for  direct  evidence,  unless  it 
be  to  its  prophecies ;  and  these,  though  we  find  them  coincident  with  our 


I 


884  CONNECTION  OP  REGENERATION  WITU  THE  RESURRECTION. 

view  of  the  subject,  may  be  tbougbt  too  doubtful  to  be  relied  on  as  primary 
proof.  Our  only  course  is  to  compare  the  doctrine  and  history  of  '  Christian 
experience'  in  the  Gentile  church,  as  recorded  by  that  church  itself,  with 
the  Bible  definition  of  the  second  birth.  We  take  for  granted  that  the  doc- 
trines of  the  present  leading  churches  of  Christendom,  at  least  on  the  sub- 
ject of  spiritual  experience,  are,  in  substance,  the  doctrines  which  have  been 
taught  and  believed  in  the  Gentile  church  as  a  whole  since  the  apostolic  age. 
What  then  is  the  popular  view  of  the  subject  of  the  second  birth  ?  We 
answer,  1,  Regeneration  is  thought  to  be  nothing  more  than  such  a  partial 
change  from  irreligion  to  the  fear  of  the  Lord  as  was  experienced  by  pious 
Jews  in  all  ages  before  the  coming  of  Christ.  This  betrays  the  fact  that 
regeneration,  in  its  essential,  Bible  character,  as  a  spiritual  quickening, 
effected  hy  the  resurrection  of  QJirist^  and  of  course  peculiar  to  the  Chris- 
tian, in  distinction  from  the  Jewish  dispensation,  is  not,  and  has  not  been 
recognized  in  the  creed  of  Gentile  Christendom.  2,  It  is  taught  and  be- 
lieved in  the  leading  churches,  that  regeneration  is  consistent  with  much 
and  even  continual  sin.  But  the  Bible  definition  of  the  second  birth  is  this : 
^He  that  is  horii  of  Grod  DOTH  NOT  COMMIT  SIN  ;  for  his  seed  remaineth  in 
Mm :  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  horn  of  Grod.^  Thus  it  is  evident 
that  the  regeneration  of  the  apostolic  age,  is  not  the  regeneration  of  Gentile 
Christendom.  This  second  feature  of  the  popular  doctrine  of  regeneration, 
necessarily  attends  the  first.  If  regeneration  was  experienced  in  the  times 
of  the  Old  Testament,  then  it  must  be  consistent  with  sin  ;  for  all  the  Old 
Testament  saints  sinned.  But  on  the  other  hand,  if  regeneration  is,  as  the 
Bible  affirms,  a  sin-eradicating  operation,  then  the  history  of  its  development 
in  the  past  ages  of  the  world  is  confined  to  the  times  subsequent  to  the  res- 
urrection of  Christ.  To  those  who  adopt  the  Bible  view  of  regeneration,  it 
will  be  evident  that  the  Gentile  church,  so  far  as  doctrine  is  concerned,  has 
not  been  conversant  with  the  real  second  birth,  but  only  with  an  inferior  kind 
of  conversion,  which  belonged  to  Judaism.  And  as  experience  follows  be- 
lieving the  truth,  and  cannot  go  beyond  the  truth  received,  it  will  also  be 
evident  that  the  experience  which  has  gone  by  the  name  of  regeneration  in 
the  Gentile  churches,  has  not  been  the  Christian  second  birth,  but  only  an 
inferior,  Jewish,  spiritual  change. 

It  follows  then,  according  to  our  rule,  that  there  has  been  no  resurrection 
suice  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  grain  has  not  been  ripened.  There- 
fore there  has  been  no  harvest.  If  it  can  he  proved  that  since  the  apstohc 
age  there  has  been  a  continuous  ministration  of  regeneration  in  Christendom, 
we  will  accept  the  doctrine  of  Bush  and  Ballou,  that  there  has  been  a  con- 
tinuous resurrection.  But  all  the  evidence  that  is  accessible  to  us,  leads  us 
to  the  conclusion  that  Bible-regeneration  ceased  at  the  end  of  the  apostolic 
age,  and  of  course  that  there  was  the  end  of  the  first  resurrection. 

The  final  inquiry  is.  When  may  the  second  resurrection  be  expected  ?  If 
we  may  legitimately  reason  from  the  past  harvest  to  the  future,  our  answer 
must  be, — The  second  resurrection  will  take  place  within  the  lifetime  of  a 
generation  from  the  period  of  the  second  ministration  of  true  Christian  regen- 
eration.    In  our  view,  the  re-development  of  the  gospel  of  salvation  from  all 


SECOND   ADVENT  TO   THE   SOUL.  385 

sin  by  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  is  the  recommencement  of  the  process 
which  ill  the  apostoHc  age  ended  in  the  second  advent  and  the  first  resurrec- 
tion.    If  this  is  true,  we  are  now  in  the  '  beginning  of  the  end.' 


§  bQ,    THE  SECOND  ADVENT  TO  THE  SOUL. 

It  has  been  held  bj  some  that  the  second  coming  of  Christ  is  so  entirely 
a  spiritual  transaction  that  it  belongs  altogether  to  the  sphere  of  haternal  ex- 
perience, and  takes  place  in  each  indi\ddual  when  '  old  things  pass  away  and 
all  things  become  new.'  This  is  doubtless  a  false  theory  ;  for  nothing  is  more 
certain  than  that  Christ  came  personally  and  visibly  to  the  expectant  church 
at  the  close  of  the  Jewish  dispensation  ;  and  it  was  this  coming,  and  not  any 
manifestation  of  Christ  in  private  experience,  which  was  constantly  held  up  to 
the  hopes  of  believers  by  the  apostles  and  New  Testament  writers.  Never- 
theless, there  is  a  moiety  of  truth  in  this  false  theory.  There  is  a  second 
coming  of  Christ  to  the  soul,  distinct  from  his  coming  to  judgment,  as  we  will 
proceed  to  show,  from  the  testimony  of  the  Bible. 

Christ  said  to  his  disciples,  on  the  eve  of  his  departure  from  them, — '  I  will 
not  leave  you  comfortless  ;  I  will  come  to  you,^  John  14:  18.  Here  is  a 
plain  promise  of  a  second  coming.  But  did  Christ,  in  this  promise,  allude  to 
the  second  coming  which  was  to  be  the  great  sequel  of  the  end  of  Judaism  ? 
Surely  not ;  for  we  have  a  subsequent  explanation  which  clearly  determines 
that  the  second  coming  here  promised  was  to  be  a  matter  of  individual  inter- 
nal experience — a  coming  of  Christ,  not  in  visible  person,  but  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  He  goes  on  to  say — '  Yet  a  little  while,  and  the  world  seeth  me  no 
more  ;  but  ye  see  me  :  because  I  live,  ye  shall  hve  also.  At  that  day  ye 
shall  know  that  I  am  in  my  Father,  and  ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  He  that 
hath  my  commandments  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me  ;  and  he 
that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of  my  Father  ;  and  I  will  love  him,  and  will 
manifest  myself  to  Mm,  [Here  the  promise  of  coming  to  them  is  repeated  in 
another  form.]  Judas  saith  unto  him,  (not  Iscariot,)  Lord,  how  is  it  that 
thou  wilt  manifest  thyself  tmto  us,  and  not  unto  the  world  ?  Jesus  answered 
and  said  unto  him,  If  a  man  love  me  he  will  keep  my  words  ;  and  my  Father 
will  love  him ;  and  ive  will  come  unto  liim^  and  make  our  abode  ivitJi  7m?z.' 
Yer.  19 — 23. .  If  the  reader  will  turn  to  his  Bible,  he  will  perceive  that  this 
passage  is  immediately  connected  and  evidently  identified  with  promises  of  the 
Holy  Gho.st  going  before  and  after  it ;  (see  verses  16,  17,  and  26  ;)  and  the 
language  of  it,  as  well  as  its  context,  indicates  that  Christ  was  not  speaking 
of  his  ultimate  personal  coming,  after  a  period  of  forty  years,  but  of  a  spiritual 
manifestation  which  was  much  nearer — a  coming,  not  of  '  the  Son  of  man  in 
the  clouds  of  heaven  with  his  holy  angels,'  but  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,  to  the  hearts  of  believers. 
48 


86G  gfiCOiJD  ADVEIf^  fO  THE  BOtli. 

I. 

On  titunng  to  the  epistles,  vte  find  language  corresponding  to  tliis  proftiis^ 
of  a  spiritual  advent,  and  testifying  that  it  had  already  taken  place  in  the  ex* 
perience  of  the  saints.  The  following  are  examples  of  such  language  :^-^ 
*  Paul,  and  Sylvanus,  and  Timothcus,  unto  the  church  of  the  Thessalonians 
tvhich  is  in  God  the  Father  a7id  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.^  1  Thess.  1:  1. 
(See  also  2  Thess.  1:  1.)—^'' Truly  our  fellowship  is  with  the  Father^  and 
with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.^  1  John  1:  3.^^-'  If  that  which  ye  have  heard  from 
the  beginning  shall  remain  in  you,  ye  also  shall  continue  in  the  Son  and  in 
the  Father'  1  John  2:  24.--'  He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he 
hath  both  the  Father  and  the  Son.'  2  John  9.  The  exact  correspondence  of 
this  last  passage  with  Christ's  promise,  ig«  worthy  of  notice.  We  will  place 
them  side  by  side  : 

John  14:  23. 

"  If  any  man  love  me  he  Will  keep  2  John  9. 

tny  words;  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  «  He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of 
and  we  will  come  unto  him  and  make  Christ,  he  hath  both  the  Father  and  the 
our  abode  with  him."  Son.'* 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  between  Christ's  personal  ministry  and  his  second 
commg  to  judgment,  there  was  a  spiritual  manifestation  of  him  to  the  souls  of 
believers  which  may  properly  be  called  his  '  second  appearing.'  This  mani- 
festation was  in  fact  the  essential  act  of  salvation-— a  transaction  which  com- 
pleted the  reconciUation  of  behevers  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  By  this 
manifestation  they  became  partakers  of  the  divine  nature,  and  thenceforth 
dwelt  in  God,  and  God  in  them.  It  was  by  this  that  they  received  the  'spitit 
of  the  Son  into  their  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father.'  Gal.  4:  6.  In  a  word, 
the  second  appearing  of  Christ  was  the  second  birth. 

We  ought,  therefore,  to  recognize  thi^ee^  instead  of  tivo  appearings  of  Christ. 
He  came,  first,  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  to  the  visible  world;  secondly^ 
in  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  the  souls  of  the  saints  ;  thirdly,  in  his  glorified  body, 
to  that  part  of  the  spiritual  world  which,  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
was  ready  for  judgment.  The  second  of  these  advents,  though  it  has  been 
altogether  eclipsed  in  the  minds  of  men  by  the  other  two,  and  has  hardly 
been  recognized  as  a  distinct  advent,  was,  nevertheless,  in  many  respects  the 
most  important  of  the  three.  So  far  as  the  saints  were  concerned,  it  was  the 
advent  by  which  *  old  things  passed  away  and  all  things  became  new.'  It 
made  them  '  new  creatures,'  and  introduced  them  to  a  '  new  heavens  and  a 
new  earth.'  At  the  first  advent,  they  communed  with  Christ  externally,  and 
saw  his  works.  The  third  advent  introduced  their  bodies  to  the  inner  man- 
sion of  his  glorious  personal  presence.  But  the  second  advent  ushered  their 
eoub  into  the  holy  of  hohes,  and  gave  them  everlasting  spiritual  fellowship 
"with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  The  proportions  between  the  three  may  be 
stated  thus :  As  the  soul  is  to  the  natural  body,  so  was  the  second  advent  to 
the  first  i  and  as  the  soul  is  to  the  glorified  body,  so  was  the  second  advent 
to  the  third. 

If  we  prefer,  however,  to  think  and  speak  only  of  two"  comings,  the  first 
and  second,  then  we  ought  to  include  in  the  second,  the  spiritual  advent 
Under  consideration.    In  fact,  the  coming,  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  the  souls 


THRONE   OF  DAVID.  8S7 

<sf  believers  during  tlie  apostolic  age,  and  the  personal  coming  to  their  bodies 
at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  world,  were  only  dififerent  parts  of  one  great  trans* 
action.  That  transaction  was  the  resurrection.  Christ  came  to  theni 
that  kept  his  words  and  looked  for  his  appearing,  first,  to  raise  their  souls 
from  the  grave  of  sin,  and  afterward  to  raise  their  bodies  from  the  bonds  of 
death.  The  one  advent  ran  into  the  other ;  and  the  whole  may  properly  b^ 
called  the  second  appearing  of  Christ. 


§57.    "THE  THRONE  OF  DAVID." 

An  article  with  the  abov^  title  was  published  by  Prof,  Bush^  in  the  *  HI- 
erophant,'  in  Dec.  1843,  which  we  here  copy. 

«  By  those  who  have  followed  the  train  of  our  exposition  of  the  7th  of  Daniel, 
it  will  have  been  seen  that  we  have  dwelt  largely  on  the  position,  that  the  king- 
dom of  the  Son  of  man,  instead  of  being  properly  a  future  expectancy,  did  in 
fact  commence  ages  ago,  at  his  ascension  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  to  the  Father's 
right  hand.  Although  there  is  indeed  abundant  evidence  that  his  kingly  power 
is  yet  to  be  more  illustriously  demonstrated,  and  more  universally  acknowledged, 
in  the  ages  of  coming  time,  when  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  shall  recognize  in 
him  their  predestined  and  lawful  Sovereign,  yet  that  his  actual  investiture  with 
the  regal  dignity  has  long  since  taken  place,  we  are  fully  persuaded.  The  prov- 
idential delay  in  assuming  to  the  full  extent  his  promised  dominion,  does  not 
militate  with  the  fact  of  his  having  received,  at  his  ascension,  the  plenary  title 
to  it.  The  case  is  strikingly  illustrated  by  that  of  his  lineal  and  typical  prede- 
cessor, David.  He,  as  we  learn  from  the  inspired  history,  was  anointed  by  Sam* 
uel  several  years  before  he  actually  entered  upon  the  exercise  of  his  royal  author- 
ity. The  jealous  hostility  of  Saul  availed  to  banish  him  for  a  long  season  from 
public  view,  and  compelled  him  to  wander  in  the  wilderness  as  a  roe  that  would 
escape  the  hands  of  the  hunter.  It  was  only  by  pressing  onwards  through  a 
formidable  array  of  obstacles  and  enemies,  that  he  found  a  vvay  to  his  own  throne, 
and  made  good  the  divine  designation  which  had  chosen  him  from  the  sheepfolds 
to  rule  over  Israel.  In  like  manner,  although  the  Saviour  was  anointed  King  of 
Zion  at  his  exaltation  from  the  grave,  and  the  second  Psalm  recites  the  decree 
of  recogqition,  on  the  part  of  Jehovah  himself,  of  his  title  to  this  august  charac- 
ter, yet  the  course  of  Providence,  for  wise  reasons,  has  been  such  as  to  prevent, 
as  in  the  case  of  David,  his  more  open,  visible,  and  acknowledged  supremacy  be- 
ing thus  far  entered  upon.  Still,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  every  thing  is  in  the 
meantime  tending,  in  the  councils  of  God,  to  the  ultimate  assertion  of  that  para- 
mount dignity  and  dominion,  which  is  secured  to  him  by  the  unerring  word  of 
prophecy;  and  it  would  be  a  very  erroneous  reading  of  the  oracles  of  scripture, 
that  should  fail  to  recognize  him  as  even  now  really  sustaining  all  the  characters 
which  the  Old  Testament  prophets  announce  in  respect  to  himp  Thus  it  wag 
clearly  predicted  that  he  should  be  a  Son  and  successor  of  David,  and  should  sit 
upon  his  throne.  This  prediction  announces  a  form  of  the  Savior's  empire,  which 
we  are  prone  to  regard  as  yet  future.     We  image  to  ourselves  in  a  vague  ajjd 


THRONE   OF   DAVID. 

indefinite  manner,  some  future  phasis  of  the  mediatorial  kingdom,  particularly  in 
connection  with  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  when  he  shall  he  distinctly  mani- 
fested and  confessed  as  the  successor  of  David  in  some  manner  entirely  different 
from  any  thing  that  has  been  hitherto  predicable  of  his  sovereignty.  We  find 
it  difficult  to  conceive  of  him  as  at  present  sustaining  that  character,  just  as  the 
tribes  of  Israel  might  be  supposed  to  have  found  it  difficult  to  look  upon  David 
as  really  their  king,  while  he  was  fleeing  from  the  pursuit  of  Saul  over  the  moun- 
tains of  Judea.  But  it  is  the  great  character  of  prophecy  to  resolve  itself  more 
and  more  into  a  shadowed  and  symbolical  portraiture  of  the  actual  accomplished 
events  of  Providence  which  are  to  be  read  in  the  page  of  history.  So,  in  the 
present  case,  the  predicted  character  of  Christ  as  the  inheritor  of  the  throne  of 
his  father  David,  is  fully  estabhshed  in  the  realized  fjicts  of  Providence  ;  and  the 
following  extract  from  Edward's  '  History  of  Redemption,'  presents  a  view  of  it 
which  will  be  seen  to  be  of  immense  importance  in  this  relation  : 

"  '  Christ  was  legally  descended  from  the  kings  of  Judah.  though  he  was  not 
naturally  descended  from  them.  He  was  both  legally  and  naturally  descended 
from  David.  He  was  naturally  descended  from  Nathan,  the  son  of  David  :  for 
Mary,  his  mother,  was  of  the  posterity  of  David  by  Nathan,  as  may  be  seen  in 
Luke's  genealogy  ;  but  Joseph,  the  reputed  and  legal  father  of  Christ,  was  natu- 
rally descended  from  Solomon  and  his  successors,  as  we  have  an  account  in  Mat- 
thew's genealogy.  Jesus  Christ,  though  he  was  not  the  natural  son  of  Joseph, 
yet,  by  the  law  and  constitution  of  the  Jews,  he  was  Joseph's  lawful  heir  ;  he  was 
the  lawful  son  of  Joseph's  lawful  wife  ;  conceived  while  she  was  his  espoused 
wife.  The  Holy  Ghost  raised  up  seed  to  him.  By  the  law  of  Moses,  a  person 
might  be  the  legal  son  and  heir  of  another  whose  natural  son  he  was  not ;  as 
sometimes  a  man  raised  up  seed  to  his  brother ;  a  brother  in  some  cases  was  to 
build  up  a  brother's  house ;  so  the  Holy  Ghost  built  up  Joseph's  house,  And 
Joseph  being  in  the  direct  line  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  the  house  of  David,  he  was 
the  legal  heir  to  the  crown  of  David  ;  and  Christ  being  legally  his  first-born  son, 
he  was  his  heir ;  and  so  Christ,  by  the  law,  was  the  proper  heir  of  the  crown  of 
David,  and  is  therefore  said  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  David.' 

"It  is  undoubtedly  very  common,  on  reading  or  hearing  the  following  passage, 
Ezek.  21:  17,  '  I  will  overturn,  overturn,  overturn,-  till  he  shall  come  whose  right 
it  is,'  to  understand  its  accomplishment  as  in  every  respect  yet  future  ;  but  the 
words  of  Peter,  Acts  2:  30,  interpreted  on  the  ground  above  assumed,  show  it 
as  having  entered  upon  a  course  of  fulfilment;  '  Therefore  being  a  prophet,  and 
knowing  of  a  truth  that  God  had  sworn  with  an  oath  to  him,  that  of  the  fruit  of 
his  loins,  according  to  the  flesh,  he  would  raise  up  Christ  to  sit  upon  his  throne ; 
he,  seeing  this  before,  spake  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  that  his  soul  was  not 
left  in  hell,  neither  his  flesh  did  see  corruption.  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up, 
whereof  we  all  are  witnesses.  Therefore  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted, 
and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed 
forth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear.'  What  then  should  prevent  us  from  un- 
derstanding as  literally  accomplished  the  words  of  Gabriel,  in  announcing  the 
birth  of  the  Savior  to  Mary,  Luke  1:  30 — 33,  <  Behold  thou  shalt  conceive  in  thy 
womb,  and  bring  forth  a  son,  and  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus.  He  shall  be  great, 
and  shall  be  called  [because  he  shall  he']  the  Son  of  the  Highest ;  and  the  Lord 
God  shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his  father  David;  and  he  shall  reign  over 
the  house  of  David  forever,  and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end'  ?  We  ad- 
niit  of  course  that  his  regal  dominion  is  in  the  process  of  universal  esiahlishment 
■—that  it  will  be  eventually  far  more  visibly  and  signally  manifested  than  it  ever 


THRONE   OF   DAVID.  389 

yet  has  been ;  still  we  cannot  resist  the  evidence  that  it  has  been  long  since 
commenced  in  such  a  manner  as  to  satisfy  the  very  letter  of  the  predictions.  It 
may  indeed  be  affirmed  that  the  prophetic  oracles  warrant  the  expectation  that 
this  kingdom  shall  be  visibly  established  on  earth,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  shall  be 
as  truly  recognized  as  the  occupant  of  David's  throne,  and  that  too  among  the 
Jewish  race,  as  was  David  himself  in  the  days  of  his  life.  Granted  ;  but  still,  we 
ask  what  is  there  to  forbid  the  idea  that  that  kingdom  has  already  commenced^ 
and  that  the  Messiah's  headship  over  it  is  in  a  continued  process  of  development, 
which  will  ultimately  reach  a  consummation  that  shall  perfectly  realize  the  high- 
est import  of  the  language  applied  to  it?  Is  the  fact  of  his  being  the  spiritual 
king  of  Zion  necessarily  inconsistent  with  the  fact  of  hiti  being  at  the  same  time 
h*ir literal  king?  It  was  clearly  predicted  that  he  should  'sit  a  priest  upon  his 
throne,^  or  that  the  regal  and  sacerdotal  character  should  be  combined  in  him. 
But  his  priesthood  is  not  the  less  real  because  it  is  not  visibly  exercised  at  an 
earthly  altar,  and  in  connexion  with  an  earthly  temple.  And  so,  although  his 
throne  is  not  now  an  object  of  the  senses  on  the  material  earth,  yet  we  see  not 
why  the  royal  succession  of  the  line  of  David  is  not  continued  in  Him,  who  is 
ascended  on  high,  and  has  been  crowned  '  Lord  of  all  to  the  glory  of  God  the 
Father.' 

"  The  suggestions  now  offered  are  intended  to  bear  upon  the  mode  of  interpre- 
tation adopted  by  many  excellent  men,  both  in  this  country  and  in  England, 
and  on  the  ground  of  which  they  are  led  to  look  for  a  {ature  perso7ial  manifesta- 
tion of  Christ  in  his  kingly  character  and  on  this  terrestrial  theatre.  Though 
fully  aware  of  the  force  of  the  argument,  as  drawn  from  the  letter  of  scripture, 
yet  we  cannot  assure  ourselves  that  this  is  the  true-meant  sense,  because  we  can- 
not feel  sure  of  being  in  possession  of  those  laws  of  spiritual  and  physical  being 
upon  which  such  a  manifestation  must  necessarily  depend.  We  are  not  satisfied 
that  the  raised,  spiritualized,  and  glorified  bodies  of  Christ,  or  the  saints,  can  be 
seen  by  mortal  eyes;  nor,  if  they  could,  are  we  convinced  that  this  mode  of 
manifestation  would  address  itself  any  more  effectually  to  the  intellectual  prin- 
ciples of  our  nature  than  they  do  when  seen  by  a  purely  spiritual  vision.  Take 
the  case  of  a  single  church  visited  by  a  powerful  revival  of  religion  ;  does  not  the 
presence  of  Christ  as  really,  yea,  and  as  visibly,  manifest  itself  as  if  he  were  per- 
sonally  present  in  bodily  form  ?  Suppose  such  an  influence  vastly  extended,  so 
as  to  embrace  in  fact  the  whole  world  ;  would  there  not  then  be  such  a  real  and 
visible  demonstration  of  the  divine  presence,  power,  and  working,  as  would  an- 
swer all  the  demands  of  prophecy  relative  to  what  is  often  termed  the  personal 
reign  of  Christ  during  the  millennial  age  ? 

"We  throw  out  these  queries  suggestively.  For  ourselves,  we  have  a  latent 
persuasion  that  the  true  sense  of  many  of  the  prophecies,  relative  to  the  grand 
futurities  of  the  church  and  the  world,  cannot  be  determined  without  a  fuller 
knowledge  than  we  at  present  possess,  respecting  the  psychical  conditions  of  our 
being,  and  the  laws  that  regulate  the  relations  of  matter  and  spirit.  Who  shall 
define  for  us  the  precise  line  of  demarcation,  where  the  sight  of  the  body  ends 
and  that  of  the  spirit  begins  ?  It  is  to  us  by  no  means  clear,  that  the  church  at 
large  is  not  to  be  elevated  into  a  state  of  spiritual  perception  very  much  akin  to 
that  of  the  prophets  themselves,  l)efore  they  can  properly  be  said  to  see  what  the 
prophet.-?  have  described.  If  these  suggestions  are  well  founded,  it  follows,  that 
study  of  the  subjective  as  well  as  that  of  the  objective,  enters  of  necessity  into  the 
sphere  of  prophetic  elucidation." — Hierophant.  p.  279. 


890  THRONE  OF  DAVID. 

REMARKS.  ■    -  t^ 

The  suggestions  of  the  foregoing  article  are,  in  our  view,  unusually  sen- 
sible, and  give  cheering  indications  that  scientific  and  popular  investigations 
of  prophecy  are  advancing  in  the  right  direction.  We  agree  with  Mr.  Bush 
'  that  the  kingdom  of  the  Son  of  man,  instead  of  being  properly  a  future  ex- 
pectancy, did  in  fact  commence  ages  ago  ;'  and  we  attach  great  importance 
to  this  view,  as  being  essential  to  a  right  understanding  of  the  whole  drama 
of  the  prophetic  scriptures.  We  thuik,  however,  that  some  particulars  of  the 
outline  marked  out  by  the  typical  illustration  which  Mr.  Bush  employs,  may 
be  improved. 

Taking  the  history  of  David  as  a  miniature  of  Christ's  progressive  exalta- 
tion, we  cannot  admit  that  the  period  of  the  spiritual  David's  exclusion  from 
his  throne  by  the  persecution  of  his  rival,  extends  over  the  enormous  space 
of  eighteen  hundred  years;  i.  e.,  from  his  anointing  at  his  ascension,  till  the 
present  time.  There  is  evidently  some  confusion  and  inconsistency  in  rep- 
resenting that  the  kingdom  of  the  Son  of  man  '  in  fact  commenced  ages  ago,' 
and  yet  that  the  Son  of  man  is  still  as  David  was  '  before  he  actually  entered 
upon  the  exercise  of  royal  authority.'  While  Saul  lived,  David's  kingdom 
did  not  commence,  but  was  a '  future  expectancy.'  His  nomination  and  right 
to  the  throne  by  the  anointing  of  Samuel,  was  one  thing  ;  the  commencement 
of  his  reign  was  another.  Our  theory  of  the  second  advent  directs  us  to  a 
better  way  of  applying  the  illustration. 

Christ  was  anointed,  and  the  decree  of  his  sovereignty  went  forth,  at  his 
ascension.  He  was  then  in  the  position  of  David  after  his  nomination,  and 
before  the  death  of  Saul.  Though  he  was  God's  chosen  king,  he  had  prop- 
erly no  kingdom  either  in  the  visible  or  invisible  worlds.  The  old  Mosaic 
hierarchy  remained  in  possession  of  that  part  of  Israel  which  was  in  this  world, 
and  spiritual  wickedness  reigned  in  the  '  heavenly  places.'  (See  Eph,  6:  12, 
Rev.  12:  7.)  He  had  a  band  of  followers  on  earth,  and  also  doubtless  in 
heaven.  So  David,  while  hiding  in  the  wilderness  from  the  face  of  Saul, 
gathered  ahout  him  a  company  of  adherents.  During  the  whole  period  of  the 
apostolic  age,  Christ,  by  his  messengers  and  spirit,  was  making  known  to 
heaven  and  earth  his  right  to  reign,  and  was  thus  working  his  way  to  the 
throne  of  Israel.  So  David,  by  the  conspicuous  position  which  he  assumed, 
and  the  glorious  deeds  which  he  performed  during  the  time  while  he  was  ex- 
cluded and  persecuted  by  Saul,  was  winning  the  hearts  of  the  people,  and 
preparing  to  ascend  the  throne.  But  in  both  cases  the  Lord's  anointed  was 
for  the  time  being  only  king  dejure,  not  king  de  facto* 

*  There  is  a  sini^ular  coincideuce  with  this  view  of  the  parallel  between  David's  his. 
tory  during-  the  life  of  Saul,  and  Christ's  history  during-  the  apostolic  ag-e,  in  the  tact  that 
Paul,  before  his  conversion  and  when  he  was  '  breathing-  out  threatening-  and  slaughter 
against  the  church,'  was  called  Saul.  When  Christ  appeared  to  him  on  the  plains  of 
Damascus,  he  said — 'Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou  me  ?'  Is  it  not  allowable  to  sup- 
pose that  Christ  intended  by  his  emphatic  repetition  of  the  name,  to  sug-gest  the  coinci- 
dence  of  Saul's  spirit  and  course  with  that  of  his  ancient  namesake  ?  The  scene  admits 
ot  an  interesting-  comparison  with  that  interview  between  David  and  Saul  in  the  wilder- 
ness ofEng-edi,  when  David  in  expostulating-  with  his  enemy,  said — '  I  have  not  sinned 
ag-ainst  thee,  yet  thou  huntest  my  soul  to  take  it.'  1  Sam.  24:  11.  Paul  bud  'profited 
more  than  his  equals  :n  the  Jews'  religion.'     lie  was  *  a  head  taller  than  the  rest  of  tha 


THRONE  OF  DAVID*  891 

Now  instead  of  supposing  that  Christ  remained  in  this  semi-regal  posture 
for  ages,  and  remains  there  still,  as  Mr.  Bush's  representation  implies,  we 
find  in  the  events  connected  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  a  counter- 
part of  the  overthrow  of  Saul  and  the  commencement  of  David's  actual 
sovereignty.  From  the  beginning  of  the  testimony  of  the  gospel,  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  was  declared  to  be  very  near.  John  the  Baptist  cried  in  the 
wilderness,  saying—'  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.'  Christ  proclaimed 
in  Galilee  and  Judea — '  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.'  The  twelve, 
and  the  seventy,  were  commissioned  to  carry  abroad  the  tidings — '  The  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  at  hand.'  On  the  one  hand,  the  bare  terms  of  this  oft- 
repeated  annunciation  preclude  the  idea  that  the  establishment  of  the  Mes- 
siah's kingdom  was  to  be  deferred  eighteen  hundred  or  two  thousand  years  ; 
and  on  the  other  we  have  decisive  collateral  evidence  that  it  did  not  refer  to 
the  ascension  of  Christ  or  to  any  other  event  previous  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem*  As  a  specimen  of  this  evidence  we  will  simply  cite  Luke  21: 
81, — *  So  likewise  ye,  when  ye  see  these  things  [viz.  the  distress  and  ruin 
of  the  Jewish  nation  by  the  Romans]  come  to  pass,  know  ye  that  the  king- 
dom of  Q-od  is  nigh  at  hand.'  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  this  refers  to  the 
same  kingdom  as  that  announced  in  the  proclamation  of  John  the  Baptist,  of 
Christ,  and  of  the  apostles  ;  and  its  commencement  is  here  manifestly  placed 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  That  it  was  to  be  verg  soon  after  that 
event,  is  proved  by  the  statement  which  follows  the  verse  cited,  viz.,  '  Verily 
I  say  unto  you,  this  generation  shall  not  pass  away.,  till  all  he  fulfilled.'* — 
Some  event  then  came  to  pass  very  soon  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
which  was  worthy  to  be  marked  as  the  commencement  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  What  that  event  was,  we  may  help  ourselves  to  understand,  by  a 
tight  application  of  Mr.  Bush's  illustration.  Our  view  is,  that,  as  Christ, 
after  his  ascension,  and  during  the  apostolic  age,  was,  like  David  before  the 
death  of  Saul,  the  anointed  but  not  inaugurated  and  acknowledged  king  of 
Israel,  so  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  he,  like  David 
after  the  death  of  Saul,  began  to  be  invested  with  the  actual  sovereignty  to 
which  he  was  entitled. 

The  only  natural  and  proper  period  for  the  commencement  of  the  kingdom 
of  the  Messiah,  was  at  the  termination  of  the  Mosaic  economy ;  and  that 
economy  did  not  terminate  either  at  the  birth,  death,  or  ascension  of  Christ, 
but  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  time  for  the  cessation  of  the  daily 
sacrifice,  and,  with  it,  of  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  organization  instituted  by 
Moses,  had  been  appointed  by  the  prophets,  and  by  Christ  himself.  It  had 
been  distinctly  placed  at  the  distance  of  a  generation  from  Christ's  personal 
ministry;  and  accordingly  it  came,  A.  D.  70.  Whatever  was  done  before 
that  time,  could  not  properly  be  anything  more  than  such  preparatory  arrange- 
ments  for  a  new  kingdom,  as  were  made  in  the  case  of  David  during  the 
continuance  of  Saul's  kingdom.  To  suppose  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
commenced  before  the  Mosaic  kingdom  -had  come  to  an  end,  would  be  ta 

people'  in  spiritiml  stature.  He  might  tiierefore  be  considered  as  the  representative  oC 
that  king-dom  which  preceded  and  for  a  time  rivaled  Christianity,  as  the  king-dom  of  Saul 
preceded  and  rivaled  that  of  David.  In  that  character  he  persecuted  Christ,  and  hi& 
name  was  curiously  appropriate  to  his  position. 


892  THRONE   OF   DAVID. 

suppose  tliat  God  placed  Israel  under  two  independent  dynasties  at  the  same 
time — that  David  and  Saul  reigned  contemporaneously,  and  both  by  divine 
authority.  And  on  the  other  hand,  to  suppose  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
did  not  commence  immediately  after  the  termination  of  the  Mosaic  kingdom, 
would  be  to  suppose  that  God,  after  having  established  an  earthly  kingdom 
over  Israel  for  a  season,  at  last,  instead  of  bringing  in  a  heavenly  successor 
to  that  kingdom,  abandoned  his  people  and  the  world  to  anarchy.  As  David 
did  not  commence  his  reign  while  Saul's  dynasty  continued,  and  did  commence 
his  reign  immediately  after  that  dynasty  terminated,  so  the  kingdom  of  heav- 
en did  not  come  while  Judaism  existed,  and  did  come  immediately  after  its 
destruction,  i.  e.  at  the  cessation  of  the  temple  worship  in  A.  D.  70. 

In  attempting  to  explain  specifically  the  way  in  which  we  suppose  the 
kingdom  of  the  antitypical  Saul  terminated,  and  the  antitypical  David  ascen- 
ded the  throne,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  go 
into  some  investigation  of  the  philosophy  of  the  spiritual  world,  and  to  correct 
some  popular  errors  in  regard  to  the  nature  and  history  of  heaven.  We  say 
with  Mr.  Bush — '  we  have  a  latent  persuasion  that  the  true  sense  of  many 
of  the  prophecies  relative  to  the  grand  futurities  of  the  church  and  the  world, 
cannot  be  determined  without  a  fuller  knowledge  than  we  at  present  possess, 
respecting  the  psychical  conditions  of  our  being,  and  the  laws  that  regulate 
the  relations  of  matter  and  spirit ;'  and  we  may  add — without  a  fuller 
knowledge  of  the  psychical  conditions  of  the  universe,  and  the  relations  be- 
tween heaven  and  earth. 

1.  To  the  sensual  mind,  the  visible  world  is  the  universe  ;  and  even  be- 
lievers, under  the  influences  of  ordinary  life,  are  exceedingly  prone  to  mag- 
nify that  which  is  seen,  and  underrate  that  which  is  unseen.  '  Out  of  sights 
out  of  mind^  is  a  proverb  that  may  be  applied  with  emphasis  to  most  men's 
views  of  the  spiritual  world.  The  human  race,  by  its  succession  of  genera- 
tions since  the  world  began,  has  accumulated  to  the  enormous  number  of  at 
least  sixty  thousand  millions  of  souls.  Of  these,  not  more  than  one  thousand 
millions  are  now  in  the  visible  world.  The  remaining  fifty-nine  thousand  mil- 
lions are  in  the  world  of  spirits.  And  yet  we  are  apt  to  think  of  the  invisible 
part  of  mankind  as  of  small  account,  and  to  allow  in  ourselves  a  vague  impres- 
sion that  the  majority,  or  at  least  most  important  moiety  of  our  race  is  with 
us,  on  this  side  of  the  partition  between  the  seen  and  the  unseen.  When  we 
realize  the  actual  facts  in  the  case,  we  perceive  that  the  inhabitants  of  this 
world  are  but  a  very  small  minority  in  the  empire  of  humanity,  and  that  Jesus 
Christ  may  have  been  crowned  king  of  the  human  race,  and  invested  with 
actual  sovereignty  over  the  great  mass  of  his  destined  subjects,  long  ago  ; 
though  the  sway  of  his  sceptre  or  even  the  news  of  his  coronation,  may  not 
yet  have  reached  us  in  these  outskirts  of  his  dominions.  We  perceive  also 
that  the  invisible  world,  where  a  vast  majority  of  his  subjects  are,  is  tlie  only 
proper  theatre  of  his  installation  and  residence  as  king  of  men.  Hence,  we 
conclude  that  he  may  have  ascended  the  throne  promised  him — or  rather 
that  he  did  ascend  that  throne  according  to  his  predictions,  immediately  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  though  no  very  distinct  tokens  of  his  coming 
and  sovereignty  have  yet  been  seen  in  this  outward  world. 


THRONE   OF   DAVID.  S93 

2.  The  popular  impression  is,  that  the  world  into  which  human  souls  pass 
at  death,  has  been  from  the  beginning  divided  into  two  distinct  apartments, 
appropriated  respectively  to  the  righteous  and  the  wicked ;  that  men  have 
in  all  ages  been  judged  at  death,  i.  e.,  the  righteous  have  been  separated 
from  the  wicked  ;  and  that  the  former  have  passed  into  a  state  of  perfect  ho- 
liness and  happiness,  called  heaven.     The  natural  deduction  from  this  im- 
pression is,  that  Christ's  assumption  of  human  nature,  and  his  coming  in  his 
kingdom,  effected  no  special  changes  in  the  invisible  world,  since  the  judgment 
of  men  in  that  world  had  been  a  continuous  process,  not  dependent  on  his 
advent,  and  the  righteous  had  been  saved  from  sin  and  the  devil  as  fast  as 
they  entered  heaven.     Now,  without  attempting  to  '  intrude  into  those  things 
which  we  have  not  seen,'  and  without  presuming  to  deny  that  there  has  been 
in  all  ages,  in  the  spiritual  world,  some  incipient  distribution  of  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked  into  separate  apartments,  which  may  have  been  called  in  a 
relative  sense  heaven  and  hell,  we  may  safely  affirm  that  until  Christ  came 
in  the  flesh,  there  was  no  such  separation  of  the  human  race  as  was  worthy 
to  be  called  a  judgment — that  there  was  no  heaven  for  human  souls,  which 
was  beyond  the  precints  of  the  devil's  power — that  no  man  in  the  visible  or 
invisible  world  was  redeemed  and  perfected.     (See  Heb.  11:  13,  39,  40.) 
They  who  imagine  that  the  heaven  appropriated  to  human  souls  was  a  place 
of  perfect  holiness  and  happiness,  before  Christ  became  king  of  men,  will  do 
well  to  remember  that  Satan  was  among  the  sons  of  Grod  in  Job's  time  ;  (Job 
1:  6  ;)  that  the  saints  were  fighting  with  the  spiritual  wickedness  of  the  hea- 
venly places,  in  Paul's  time ;  (Eph.  6:  12  ;)  that  there  was  a  terrible  war 
in  heaven  between  Michael  and  his  angels,  and  Satan  and  his  angels,  so  late 
as  the  time  when  '  the  child  that  was  to  rule  all  nations,  was  caught  up  to 
God  and  to  his  throne.'  Rev.  12:  7.     We  are  expressly  informed  in  Heb. 
9:  23,  24,  that  it  was  necessary  that '  the  heavenly  things'  [or  places]  should 
be  purified  by^the  blood  of  Christ,  and  that  this  was  the  meaning  of  the  cer- 
emony of  sprinkling  the  tabernacle  in  the  Jewish  ritual.     Haggai,  as  quoted 
by  Paul,  predicted  that  when  the  kingdom  of  heaven  should  come,  God  would 
'  shake  not  only  the  earth,  but  also  heaven.'  Heb.  12:  26,  Hag.  2:  6,  21. 
The  judgment  and  purgation  of  heaven,  then,  was  the  first  thing  which  Christ 
had  to  do  when  he  assumed  the  sovereignty  of  the  human  race.     With  a  vast 
majority  of  his  subjects  in  the  invisible  world,  with  a  heaven  and  a  hell  not 
separated  by  any  decisive  judgment,  with  heavenly  places  full  of  spiritual 
wickedness,  and  with  Satan  still  in  the  sanctuary,  holding  captive  every  child 
of  Adam,  it  was  hardly  to  be  expected  that  Christ  would  give  much  of  his 
attention  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign  to  the  affairs  of  the  visible  province  of 
his  empire. 

8.  Another  popular  impression,  closely  connected  with  that  last  noticed, 
is,  that  heaven  (using  the  word  in  that  sense  which  refers  to  the  invisible 
habitation  prepared  for  human  souls)  is,  and  always  has  been,  the  dwelling- 
place  of  God.  Whereas  it  is  certain  that  the  heaven  as  well  as  the  earth 
appropriated  to  mankind,  is  a  part  of  creation;  and  that  God  existed  and  had 
a  dwelUng-place  before  creation,  and  of  course  is  as  independent  of  heaven  as 
of  the  earth.  Heaven  should  be  conceived  of  as  bearing  the  same  relation  to 
49 


tH  THEONfi   0^  DAVID. 

the  earth  as  the  human  soul  bears  to  the  body*  They  are  both  closely  tiiip 
ted  parts  of  one  great  whole,  which  began  to  exist  simultaneously  several 
thousand  years  ago.  Both  are  adapted  and  destined  to  be  ultimately  the 
temple  of  God  ;  but  both,  at  the  beginning,  like  the  soul  and  body  of  man^ 
fell  into  the  possession  of  the  devil ;  and  heaven  as  well  as  earth  was  obliged 
to  Wait  for  the  reconciliation  and  in-dwelling  of  God  till  the  incarnation,  atone- 
ment, and  second  advent  of  the  Messiah.  With  these  views,  we  understand 
that  Christ  when  he  ascended  up  on  high,  did  not  ascend  to  the  human  hea* 
ven,  or  at  least  did  not  stop  there.  He  went  to  the  Father ;  and  the  Father 
•Was  where  he  was  before  the  world  began,  i.  e.  beyond  the  precincts  of  cre- 
ation, above  heaven,  as  well  as  the  earth.  (See  John  17:  5.)  Accordingly 
it  is  expressly  said  that  Christ  '  ascended  up  far  above  all  heavens,' 
(Eph.  4: 10,)  and  that  he  was  ^made  higher  than  the  heavens.^  (Heb.  7:  26.) 
It  follows  then  that  what  is  said  in  the  New  Testament  about  Christ's  '  com- 
ing the  second  time,'  is  to  be  referred,  not  to  this  visible  world  exclusively 
or  chiefly,  but  to  the  whole  habitation  of  humanity— to  heaven  and  earthy 
and  principally  to  heaven,  as  being  by  nature,  like  the  human  soul,  nearest 
to  God,  and  of  the  greatest  account.  Christ  came  in  the  flesh  and  dwelt 
with  men^-not  merely  with  the  men  of  this  world,  but  in  spirit  with  the  whole 
i*ace,  visible  and  invisiye.  Then  he  ascended  to  the  Father,  far  above  hea* 
Ven  and  earth.  Finally  he  came  the  second  time  from  the  Father  to  heaven 
and  earth,  and  assumed  the  sovereignty  of  the  race.  We  may  illustrate  our 
view  of  the  matter  thus :  Suppose  heaven  and  earth  to  be  the  upper  and 
lower  stories  of  a  house  occupied  by  men.  We  hving  in  the  lower  story 
and  receiving  all  divine  communications  from  the  regions  above  us,  are  apt 
to  think  that  God  lives  in  the  upper  story.  But  the  truth  is  that  he  lives  far 
above  the  whole  house.  His  Son  is  sent  to  establish  communication  with 
the  household.  He  descends  to  the  lower  story  and  dwells  there  in  body^ 
and  with  the  whole  household  in  spirit,  for  a  season.  When<»he  is  about  to 
depart,  he  tells  us  that  he  is  going  where  he  came  from,  and  that  he  shall 
come  again  at  a  future  time  and  establish  himself  as  king  of  the  household* 
Now  if  we  imagine  that  he  came  from  the  upper  story,  and  conceive  of  our- 
selves (i.  e.  the  inhabitants  of  the  lower  story)  as  constituting  the  whole 
household,  we  shall  understand  him  as  meaning  that  he  is  going  to  the  upper 
story,  and  will  come  again  at  the  time  appointed  to  take  up  his  abode  and 
reign  in  the  lower  story.  But  if  we  bear  in  mind  that  he  came  from  a  region 
far  above  the  whole  house,  and  that  the  household  includes  the  inhabitants 
of  the  upper  as  well  as  lower  story,  we  shall  understand  him  as  meaning  that 
lie  is  going  far  above  the  upper  story,  and  will  come  again  in  due  time  to  take 
Up  his  abode  and  reign  in  the  house,  choosing  of  course  for  his  personal  res- 
idence that  part  of  the  house  which  has  the  most  inhabitants,  and  is  most 
congenial  to  his  nature,  viz.,  the  upper  story.  Christ's  promises  of  coming 
again  have,  indeed,  an  application  to  the  lower  story  as  well  as  to  the  upper. 
He  was  to  come  'in  like  manner^  as  he  ascended.  This  can  mean  nothing 
less  than  that  he  was  to  appear  personally  to  believers  on  earth ;  and  it  can 
mean  notliing  more  than  this,  because  none  but  believers  saw  him  ascend  ; 
ftnd  indeed  Ins  nature  after  his  resurrection  was  evidently  such  that  none  but 


THRONE   OF  DAVID„  89S 

spiritual  persons  could  see  him,  and  they  only  as  they  might  see  angelg, 
i.  e.  in  vision.  He  was  to  appear  to  some  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  lower 
story ;  but,  observe,  he  was  not  to  remain  below,  or  even  to  come  quite  down 
the  stairs  between  the  lower  and  the  upper  stories.  Paul  foretels  the  manner 
of  his  coming  thus :  '  The  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a 
shout,  &c.,  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first.  Then  we  which  are  ahve 
and  remain,  shall  be  caught  up  together  with  them  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the 
Lord  in  the  air  ;  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord.'  IThess.  4:  16, 17, 
We  understand  by  this  that  the  Lord  was  to  appear  to  believers  on  earth  in 
a  cloud,  as  he  disappeared  in  a  cloud,  (Acts  1:  9,)  and  was  to  come  near 
enough  to  the  earth  to  draw  them  to  him,  but  that  he  was  not  actually  to 
aUght.  His  glorious  appearing,  with  his  mighty  angels,  and  his  assumption 
of  regal  dignity,  took  place  in  the  upper  story;  and  all  that  was  necessary 
that  he  should  do,  in  order  to  the  fulfilment  of  his  promises  with  reference 
to  the  lower  story,  was  that  he  should  come  down  the  stair-case  far  enough 
to  appear  to  those  who  looked  for  him,  and  take  them  up  with  him- — Avhich 
we  are  sure  he  did  at  the  time  appointed,  viz.  immediately  after  the  destruc* 
tion  of  Jerusalem, 

Having  thus  corrected  our  notions  of  the  theatre  of  Christ's  second  advent, 
we  are  now  in  some  measure  prepared  to  conceive  what  were  the  transactions 
which  ushered  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  at  the  termination  of  the  Mosaic 
economy.  Christ  came  the  second  time  from  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  the 
holy  place  into  which  the  way  had  never  been  '  made  manifest  while  the  first 
tabernacle  was  standing.'  As  he  passed  downward  he  took  with  him  an 
army  of  angels,  who  occupied  the  highest  heaven.  With  them  he  came  to 
the  human  race,  and  of  course  to  the  heaven  appropriated  to  the  righteous 
of  that  race,  first.  There  he  found  in  God's  destined  place,  (viz.  the  inner 
temple  of  humanity,)  the  man  of  sin,  Satan  incarnate,  pretending  to  be  God, 
and  claiming  divine  worship.  '  The  Lord  consumed  him  with  the  spirit  of 
his  mouth,  and  destroyed  him  by  the  brightness  of  his  coming.'  2  Thess.  2: 
3 — 8.  '  Michael  and  his  angels  fought,  and  the  dragon  and  his  angels;  and 
the  dragon  was  cast  out,  and  his  angels  were  cast  out  with  him  j  neither  was 
their  place  found  any  more  in  heaven.'  Rev.  12:  7—9.  The  Lord  Jesus 
was  revealed  in  the  soul  of  the  world  with  his  mighty  angels.,  in  flaming  fire, 
taking  vengeance  on  his  enemies,  and  giving  rest  to  his  troubled  believers. 
2  Thess.  1:  7—8.  Simultaneously  with  these  transactions  in  the  spiritual 
world,  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  organization  of  the  Jews  on  earth,  which  had 
become  the  chief  vehicle  of  antichrist,  was  '  dashed  in  pieces,  like  a  potter's 
vessel,'  and  the  wicked  men  who  had  said  ^  We  will  not  have  this  man  to 
reign  over  us,'  had  been  brought  before  him  and  slain.  Luke  19:  27.  Thug 
the  kingdom  of  Saul  was  rent  from  him,  and  David  ascended  the  throne. 
Thus  Christ  became  king  of  men,  and  the  reign  of  heaven  over  the  human 
race  commenced. 

Mr.  Bush  intimates  that  Christ,  though  anointed,  has  not  yet  entered  up- 
on  his  '  open,  visible,  and  acknowledged  supremacy.'  We  must  be  permit- 
ted to  say,  that  in  our  view^  this  is  not  the  right  way  of  stating  the  case.  He 
has  been  openly  seen  and  acknowledged  King  of  kings,  in  that  part  of  his 


396  THRONE   OF   DAVID. 

dominions  where  fifty-nine  thousand  millions  of  his  human  subjects,  besides  at 
least  tAvelve  legions  of  angels,  dwell.  How  much  would  it  have  added  to  the 
splendor  of  his  coronation  if  the  few  inhabitants  of  this  outward  world  had 
been  present,  and  bowed  the  knee  ?  Suppose,  when  Queen  Victoria  publicly 
ascended  the  throne  of  Great  Britian,  the  inhabitants  of  the  Isle  of  Wight 
had  known  nothing  of  the  affair.  Would  it  have  been  proper,  on  that  account, 
to  have  said  that  she  had  not  entered  upon  her  'open,  visible,  and  acknowl- 
edged supremacy'  ?  The  inhabitants  of  that  little  isle  might  have  thought 
and  said  so,  but  the  rest  of  Great  Britian  would  have  thought  and  said 
otherwise. 
^/  We  believe  that  Christ  has  not  only  reigned  openly  and  visibly  in  that  sec- 
tion of  his  kingdom  which  contains  a  vast  majority  of  the  human  race,  but 
that  even  in  this  world  where  his  authority  has  not  yet  been  formally  recog- 
nized, the  infallible  proofs  of  his  actual  sovereignty  are  legible  in  the 
history  of  all  nations  for  the  last  eighteen  hundred  years.  Let  it  be 
borne  in  mind  that  the  decree  which  placed  him  on  the  throne,  declared  that 
he  should  '  rule  the  nations  wiiJi  a  rod  of  iron,  and  dash  them  in  pieces  like 
a  potter's  vessel'  (See  Psalm  2:  9,  Rev.  2:  27,  12:  5.)  It  is  evident, 
then,  that  the  first  ages  of  his  reign  were  to  be,  so  far  as  the  nations  of  this 
world  are  concerned,  not  ages  of  peace  and  blessedness,  but  of  revolution  and 
destruction.  Let  us  look  back  through  the  history  of  the  nations,  and  see 
if  we  cannot  find  the  marks  of  his  iron  rod.  In  the  first  place,  the  nation 
that  crucified  him  and  attempted  to  destroy  his  testimony  on  earth,  was  dash- 
ed into  innumerable  fragments,  and  scattered  over  the  world.  Next  we  see 
the  Roman  Empire,  which  had  held  the  world  under  its  pohtical  dominion, 
and  had  been  partner  with  the  Jewish  nation  in  the  attempt  to  extirpate 
Christianity,  first  surrendering  its  strong  holds  to  the  representatives  of  the 
Nazarene,  and  then  falling  into  ruin  by  the  hands  of  barbarians,  gathered 
from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  by  an  unseen  power.  Here  was  the  end  of  the 
series  of  the  universal  monarchies.  Christ,  having  assumed  the  government 
of  mankind,  first  set  about  removing  the  great  general  organization  which 
stood  in  his  way  in  this  world.  Since  the  fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  the 
world  as  a  whole,  has  had  no  government  over  it  except  that  of  the  Son  of 
man.  And  we  may  be  sure  that  no  nation  will  ever  again  succeed  in  estab- 
lishing a  universal  monarchy.  Christ's  policy  is  evidently  opposed  to  such 
a  movement ;  and  he  has  proved  himself  able  to  defeat  all  the  combinations 
of  his  enemies.  We  recognize  his  wisdom  and  power  in  balancing  the  forces 
of  Mohammedanism  and  Popery  against  each  other,  so  as  to  cripple  both  in 
their  attempts  to  usurp  his  dominion  over  the  world.  We  regard  Napoleon 
as  almost  literally  the  '  rod  of  iron'  with  which  he  '  dashed  in  pieces'  the  do- 
ting monarchies  of  Europe.  And  when  '  the  rod  shook  itself  against  him  that 
lifted  it  up' — when  Napoleon  himself  grasped  at  the  sovereignty  of  the  world, 
— Christ  dashed  his  kingdom  in  pieces,  like  a  potter's  vessel. 

Mr.  Bush's  illustration,  by  a  little  extension  of  its  application,  may  be 
made  to  characterize  very  appropriately  the  reign  of  Christ,  from  the  com- 
mencement of  his  kingdom  till  the  present  time.     David  was  invested  with 
,   the  actual  sovereignty  of  Israel  at  the  termination  of  Saul's  dynasty ;  but  he 


BIRTHRIGHT  OF  ISRAEL.  397 

was  engaged  in  wars  with  the  PhiUstines,  and  other  surrounding  nations, 
through  his  whole  reign,  insomuch  that  he  was  called  '  a  man  of  blood  ;'  and 
for  that  reason  the  privilege  of  building  the  temple  was  reserved  for  Solomon. 
So  Christ,  though  he  became  king  of  men  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion, has  been  employed  in  the  necessary  work  of  subverting  the  hostile  prin- 
cipalities and  powers  of  this  world,  till  the  present  time.  And  it  is  manifest 
that  he  will  reign  with  a  rod  of  iron,  and  as  a  man  of  blood,  till  all  enemies 
are  put  under  his  feet.  Then  he  will  pass  from  the  warlike  majesty  of  David,* 
into  the  peaceful  glory  of  Solomon.  This  is  the  transition  that  remains  to  be 
accomphshed.  The  chosen  King  of  Israel  has  been  anointed,  has  been  hunted 
in  the  wilderness  by  Saul,  has  won  his  promised  throne,  has  estabhshed  his 
everlasting  kingdom,  and  for  nearly  eighteen  hundred  years  has  waged  war 
with  the  heathen  nations  around  his  empire.  We  look  now  for  the  advent 
of  everlasting  victory  and  peace — for  the  building  of  the  gorgeous  temple  of 
the  universal  church — for  the  development  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  of  all  the 


§  58.    THE  BIRTHRIGHT  OF  ISRAEL. 

We  find  among  the  prominent  dogmas  of  popular  Christianity,  many  notions 
which  certainly  did  not  originate  in  the  sacred  writings.  For  example,  the 
New  Testament,  instead  of  enjoining,  positively  condemns  the  observance  of 
sabbaths  ;  and  yet  the  idea  has  come  in,  and  seated  itself  on  the  very  throne 
of  the  conscience  of  Christendom,  that  God  has  commanded  men  to  observe 
the  first  day  of  the  week  as  especially  sacred.  Again,  among  all  the  current 
assertions  of  those  who  are  called  Christians,  there  is  perhaps  not  one  more 
frequently  repeated  and  more  surely  believed,  than  that '  the  age  of  miracles 
is  past.'  Yet  we  find  not  an  intimation  in  the  Bible  that  the  original  princi- 
ples of  God's  administration  in  respect  to  miracles,  were  ever  to  be  changed. 
The  common  belief  concerning  the  second  coming  of  Christ — the  assumption 
that  the  first  generation  of  the  '  Fathers'  were  the  appointed  successors  of  the 
apostles, — that  the  church  of  the  first  ages  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
was  nearly  as  pure  as  the  primitive  church, — are  other  instances  of  popular 
imaginations,  which,  though  they  hold  places  of  essential  importance  in  the 
common  faith,  are  not  even  countenanced  by  scripture.  To  the  same  class 
of  fatherless  (or  perhaps  we  should  say  patristic)  dogmas,  we  must  assign 
the  prevailing  notion  that  God  has  abrogated  the  special  relation  which  for- 
7mrly  existed  between  himself  and  the  Jewish  nation. 

We  propose  in  this  article  to  consider  the  relations  of  the  Jews  to  God, 
and  to  the  world.  Our  object  will  be  to  present  to  our  readers  a  distinct 
view  of  the  nature  of  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham  ;  to  show 
the  original  distinction  which  was  thereby  made  between  Jews  and  Gentiles ; 


398  BIRTHRIGHT  OP  ISRAEL. 

to  give  the  evidence  that  tliis  distinction  still  exists ;  to  consider  the  probable 
and  predicted  consequences  of  the  restoration  of  the  chosen  people  to  the 
favor  of  God ;  and  lastly,  the  duties  and  obligations  of  the  Gentiles  toward 
them. 

Whatever  we  may  now  think,  or  hereafter  conclude,  concerning  the  true 
design  of  God's  covenant  Avith  Abraham,  and  its  legitimate  consequences,  it 
is  obvious  without  discussion  or  proof,  that  its  actual  consequence  has  been, 
•to  divide  the  human  race  into  two  great  parties,  called  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
The  distinction  between  these  parties  is  such  as  has  naturally  made  occasion 
for  the  operation  of  selfishness  and  misconception.  Arrogance  and  bigotry 
have  displayed  themselves  on  the  one  side,  jealousy  and  envy  on  the  other. 
So  that  the  covenant  which  made  the  division,  is  like  a  disputed  will.  The 
JoAV,  as  elder  brother  and  principal  heir,  has  insisted  upon  that  interpretation 
of  the  will,  which  gives  him  an  exclusive  inheritance  ;  and  the  Gentile,  as  the 
younger  and  less  favored  claimant,  has  endeavored  to  set  aside  the  will  alto- 
gether, or  to  nullify  its  invidious  provisions  by  liberal  interpretation.  In  at- 
tempting to  present  a  subject  thus  circumstanced,  and  to  decide  the  ques- 
tions growing  out  of  it,  the  difficulty  to  be  encountered  lies  noj;  so  much  in  the 
intricacy  of  the  case  to  be  tried,  as  in  the  questionable  character  of  the  court 
that  is  to  try  it.  All  men  belong  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  interested  parties  ; 
so  that  either  we  must  needs  go  out  of  the  world,  or  bring  the  matter  before 
a  court  in  which  lawyers,  witnesses,  judge  and  jury,  are  by  their  position  ex- 
posed to  prejudice.  Yet  this  difficulty  is  not  insuperable.  There  is,  in  law 
and  equity,  one  case,  and  only  one,  in  which  a  witness  may  testify  in  his  own 
cause,  and  a  party  may  be  judge  and  jury  of  his  own  case.  And  that  is, 
when  the  testimony  of  the  witness,  and  the  judgment  of  the  interested  party 
are  against  himself.  A  criminal  may,  as  witness,  judge  and  jviry,  decide  his 
own  case,  by  pleading  guilty.  And  indeed  testimony  and  judgment  which, 
as  in  such  a  case,  runs  counter  to  selfishness,  is  properly  regarded  as  even 
stronger  evidence  of  honesty,  than  the  testimony  and  judgment  of  a  merely 
disinterested  party.  On  this  principle,  Paul,  being  a  Jew,  could  freely  plead 
the  cause  of  the  Gentiles,  with  all  assurance,  for  himself,  that  his  testimony 
was  not  corrupted  by  the  prejudice  of  selfishness,  and  for  others,  that  it  would 
be  received  as  honest  and  true.  On  the  same  principle  we,  being  Gentiles, 
may  take  the  liberty  to  become  witnesses  and  advocates  for  the  Jews,  without 
fearing  the  charge  of  partiality  or  dishonesty. 

god's  covenant  with  ABRAHAM. 

The  following  passages  contain  the  several  promises  made  to  Abraham  at 
different  times,  which,  taken  together,  constitute  the  covenant  whose  nature 
and  consequences  we  propose  to  examine. 

'  The  Lord  said  unto  Abram,  Get  thee  out  of  thy  country,  and  from  thy 
kindred,  and  from  thy  father's  house,  unto  a  land  that  I  willjshow  thee  :  and 
I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation^  and  I  ivill  bless  thee,  and  make  thy  name 
^reat ;  and  tJiou  shalt  be  a  blessing :  and  I  tvill  bless  them  that  bless  thee, 
and  curse  him  that  curseth  thee :  and  in  thee  shall  all  families  of  the  earth 
he  blessed'  Gen.  12:  1 — 3.     '.^nd  the  Lord  appeared  unto  Abram,  [when 


BIRTHRIGHT   OF  ISRAEL.  899 

he  had  come  into  the  land  of  Canaan,]  and  said,  Unto  thy  seed  will  I  give 
this  land.''  Yer.  7.  '  The  Lord  said  unto  Abram,  after  that  Lot  was  sepa- 
rated from  him,  Lift  up  now  thine  eyes,  and  look  from  the  place  where  thou 
art,  northward,  and  southward,  and  eastward,  and  westward :  for  all  the  land 
which  thou  seest,  to  thee  will  I  give  it,  and  to  thy  seed  for  ever.  And  I  will 
make  thy  seed  as  the  dust  of  the  earth:  so  that  if  a  man  can  number  the 
dust  of  the  earth,  then  shall  thy  seed  also  be  numbered.  Arise,  walk  through 
the  land,  in  the  length  of  it,  and  in  the  breadth  of  it :  for  I  will  give  it  unto 
thee.''  Chap.  13:  14 — 17.  '  After  these  things,  the  word  of  the  Lord  came 
unto  Abram  in  a  vision,  saying,  Fear  not,  Abram :  I  am  thy  shield,  and  thy 
exceeding  great  reward.-^^Jjook  now  toward  heaven,  and  tell  the  stars,  if  thou 
be  able  to  number  them.  And  he  said  unto  him,  So  shall  thy  seed  be. — 
Know  of  a  surety  that  thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land  not  theirs,  and 
shall  serve  them  ;  and  they  shall  afflict  them  four  hundred  years :  and  also 
that  nation  whom  they  shall  serve,  will  I  judge ;  and  afterward  shall  they 
come  out  with  great  substance.-— In  the  fourth  generation  they  shall  come 
hither  again.— In  that  same  day  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abram, 
saying,  Unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land,  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto 
the  great  river,  the  river  Euphrates.''  Chap.  15:  1,  5,  13- — 18.  '  When 
Abram  was  ninety  and  nine  years  old,  the  Lord  appeared  to  Abram,  and 
said  unto  him,  I  am  the  Almighty  God  :  walk  before  me  and  be  thou  per- 
fect. And  I  will  make  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  will  multi- 
ply thee  exceedingly.  And  Abram  fell  on  his  face  :  and  God  talked  with 
him,  saying.  As  for  me,  behold  my  covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be 
a  father  of  many  nations.  Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more  be  called  Abram: 
hut  thy  name  shall  be  called  Abraham;  for  a  father  of  many  nations  have 
I  made  thee.  And  I  will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and  I  tvill  make 
nations  of  thee,  and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thee.  And  1  will  establish  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations, 
for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein 
thou  art  a  stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  eve7dasting  p)osses8ion  ; 
and  I ivill  be  their  God.^  Chap.  17:  1 — 8.  'And  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
called  unto  Abraham  out  of  heaven,  [after  Abraham  had  offered  Isaac,] 
and  said,  By  myself  have  I  sworn,  sadth  the  Lord;  for  because  thou  hast 
done  this  thing,  and  hast  not  withheld  thy  son,  thine  only  son ;  that  in 
blessing  I  will  bless  thee,  and  in  multip)lying  I  will  multiply  thy  seed  as  the 
stars  of  the  heaven,  and  as  the  sand  which  is  up)on  the  sea-shore  ;  and  thy 
seed  shall  possess  the  gate  of  his  enemies :  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.^  Chap.  22:  15 — 18. 

OBSERVATIONS   ON  THE   COVENANT. 

I.  The  Nature  of  the  Covenant.  These  promises  are  of  two  kinds^r 
general  and  specific. 

1.  *  I  will  bless  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and 
to  thy  seed,'  &c.,  are  general  promises,  demanding  the  largest  interpretation 
^Yhich  the  known  power  of  the  promisor  admits.     If  a  man  should  say  to  & 


400  BIRTHRIGHT   OF  ISRAEL. 

child — *  I  will  be  sl  father  to  you/  he  would  be  understood  as  engaging  to  do 
all  in  his  power  for  the  welfare  of  the  child.  His  meaning  might  be  limited 
in  the  mind  of  the  child,  and  in  the  minds  of  other  ignorant  persons,  by  other 
measures  of  good.  For  instance,  if  the  child  knows  no  other  good  than  that 
of  eating  and  drinking,  to  him  the  promise  only  means — '  I  will  supply  you 
with  food.'  If  afterwards  his  knowledge  and  desire  of  good,  become  enlarged, 
the  meaning  of  the  promise  is  also  enlarged.  He  discovers  that  clothing, 
money,  education  &c.,  are  included  in  the  promise:  and  finally  he  learns 
that  his  own  conceptions  are  not  the  measure  of  his  benefactor's  meaning  ; 
that  the  promise  includes  any  thing  and  every  thing  that  a  father  can  bestow 
upon  a  son.  Thus  the  general  promises  which  God  made  to  Abraham,  how- 
ever they  may  have  been  understood  by  Abraham  then,  actually  included  all 
the  blessings  which  have  been  bestowed  upon  him  since,  even  salvation  and 
eternal  life.  And  the  promise  concerning  his  seed—'  I  will  be  their  God' 
' — however  it  may  have  been  limited  in  the  imagination  of  the  Jews,  is  actu- 
ally an  engagement  to  bless  them  not  merely  physically,  but  morally,  intellec- 
tually, and  spiritually— to  train  them  for  immortality.  Of  course  it  is  a  prom- 
ise of  all  the  necessary  means  of  education  and  salvation.  In  short,  this 
comprehensive  spiritual  promise,  '  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed 
after  him,'  is  one  which  in  its  full,  natural  sense,  secured  to  Abraham  and 
his  seed  all  possible  good.  All  the  promises  of  temporal  blessings  cluster 
around  this,  and  are  subordinate  to  it ;  as  appears  by  the  fact  that  the  tem- 
poral blessings  were  all  prospective,  while  this  spiritual  blessing  was  then 
present. '  God  gave  not  the  promised  land  to  Abraham,  nor  to  his  descend- 
ants, till  the  fourth  generation.  The  fathers  were  pilgrims  in  it,  and  the 
children  were  captives  in  another  land  ;  whereas  he  said  to  Abraham,  '  I  am 
thy  shield,  and  thy  exceeding  great  reward.'  And  in  like  manner  he  mani- 
fested himself  to  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  their  children,  as  their  preseyit  God. 
The  largest  and  almost  the  last  promise  in  the  New  Testament — the  revelation 
of  Jesus  Christ — is  only  a  repetition  of  this  covenant  with  Abraham :  '  He 
that  overcometh  shall  inherit  all  things  ;  and  I  will  he  his  God,  and  he  shall 
be  my  son.'  Rev.  21:  7. 

2.  The  specific  promises  of  the  covenant  are,  (1,)  to  give  Abraham  an 
innumerable  seed ;  (2,)  to  give  them  the  land  of  Canaan  for  an  everlasting 
possession.  These  promises  2iVQ  physical ;  and  we  have  reason  to  believe 
that  at  the  time  the  covenant  was  made,  mankind  had  made  so  little  progress 
in  moral,  intellectual,  and  spiritual  knowledge,  that  any  specific  promises 
other  than  physical,  either  could  not  have  been  expressed  for  want  of  lan- 
guage, or  would  not  have  been  understood,  by  reason  of  ignorance. 

As  we  must  not  suffer  the  specific  promises  to  eclipse  the  general,  and  so 
imagine  that  the  covenant  promised  only,  or  chiefly,  physical  blessings  ;  nei- 
ther on  the  other  hand  must  we  suffer  the  general  to  swallow  up  the  specific, 
and  so  imagine  that  the  covenant  promised  merely  spiritual  blessings.  If  a 
man  should  say  to  a  child,  *  I  will  be  a  father  to  you — I  will  do  all  I  can  for 
you — and  when  you  become  a  man,  I  will  give  you  a  hundred  acres  of  land,' 
it  would  be  wrong  on  the  one  hand  to  refer  the  covenant  exclusively  or  chiefly 
to  the  hundred  acres  of  land  j  for  education,  moral  discipline,  &c.,  are  far 


BIRTHRIGHT   OF  ISRAEL.  401 

greater  blessings  which  it  is  a  father's  business  to  dispense,  and  which  are 
therefore  included  in  the  general  promise,  which  general  promise  is  therefore 
the  main  part  of  the  covenant.  And  it  would  be  wrong  on  the  other  hand, 
to  regard  the  specific  promise  of  the  hundred  acres,  as  satisfied  by  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  general  promise. 

THE   DISTINCTION    MADE   BY  THE   COVENANT. 

To  whom  were  the  promises  made?  The  several  promises  of  the  covenant 
may  be  distinguished  with  reference  to  the  persons  concerning  whom  they 
were  made.  Though  all  the  promises  were  made  to  Abraham,  they  were 
made /or,  (1)  himself  and  his  descendants,  (2)  for  all  nations.  The  prom- 
ises for  himself  and  his  descendants,  were  direct,  constituting  a  marriage 
relation  between  them  and  God.  The  promises  for  other  nations  were  indi- 
rect, making  the  Jews  mediators.  '  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed,' 
is  direct ; — '  and  in  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed,'  is  indirect.  It  is  as  if 
he  had  said,  '  I  will  be  a  husband  to  Israel,  and  Israel  shall  be  the  husband 
of  all  other  nations.' 

The  covenant  made  with  Abraham  did  not,  as  the  Jews  afterwards  came 
to  beUeve,  promise  blessings  to  his  literal  seed,  irrespective  of  their  moral  and 
spiritual  character ;  neither  did  it  promise  blessings  to  his  spiritual  seed,  that 
is,  to  the  followers  of  his  faith,  merely,  as  the  Gentiles  are  disposed  to  believe. 
In  the  first  case,  God  would  have  been  a  respecter  of  persons,  without  refer- 
ence to  their  character,  which  is  unworthy  of  him  ;  and  in  the  second  case, 
the  question  might  well  be  asked,  and  could  never  be  answered  as  Paul  an- 
swered it — '  What  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew  V — or  which  is  the  same 
thing,  What  special  promise  was  given  to  Abraham  ?  A  covenant  of  the 
kind  first  supposed,  looking  merely  at  the  physical  posterity  of  Abraham, 
would  have  been  a  contempt  of  his  spiritual  character,  and  could  have  been 
by  no  means  desirable,  even  to  himself.  And  a  covenant  of  the  kind  last 
supposed,  looking  merely  at  his  spiritual  descendants,  or  foUovfers,  w^ould 
have  been,  in  fact,  simply  a  general  promise  of  blessing  to  those  who  fear  and 
serve  God,  which  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  has  been  given  to  all,  and 
not  specially  to  Abraham.  The  real  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abrar 
ham,  looks  both  at  his  physical  and  spiritual  posterity ;  and  the  peculiarity 
of  its  promise  is,  that  the  literal  descendants  of  Abraham  shall  be  the  subjects 
of  the  special  discipline  and  instruction  of  God,  and  of  course  as  a  nation  shall 
be  the  sjnritual  descendants  of  Abraham.  As  all  righteousness  originates, 
not  with  man,  but  with  God,  and  as  he  dispenses  the  gifts  of  liis  grace  to  every 
man,  and,  by  equal  reason,  to  every  nation  and  family,  as  he  pleases,  it  was 
for  him  to  choose  the  subjects  of  that  instruction  and  discipline  which  should 
make  men  partakers  of  his  righteousness.  And  he  chose  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, and  covenanted  with  Abraham  to  give  him  a  spiritual  seed  out  of  his 
literal  seed.  So  that  while  it  is  true  that  '  he  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  one  out- 
wardly,' and  that  God  hates  sin  as  truly  in  a  Jew  as  in  a  Gentile,  and  even 
more  in  proportion  to  their  greater  privileges ; — while  it  is  true  that '  in  every 
nation  he  that  feareth  God  and  worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  of  him  ;' 
while  it  is  true  that  he  will  destroy  the  Jew  that  believes  not,  and  w^ill  save 
50 


402  EIRtllRIGIIT    OF    ISRAEL. 

the  Geiitile  that  believes ;  while  it  is  true  that  the  door  is  open  for  the  Geti' 
tiles  to  come  in  and  become  fellow  heirs  ; — it  is  still  true,  that  the  literal  seed 
of  Abraham  have  been  special  subjects  of  God's  gracious  operations  ;  and  it 
is  rational  to  conclude  that  the  fruit  of  righteousness  in  that  nation  will  be 
found  ultimately  to  be  proportionate  to  the  specialty  of  his  grace  toward 
them*  Hence  Paul,  after  opening  the  door  to  the  Gentiles,  and  declaring 
that  '  he  is  not  a  Jew  Avho  is  one  outwardly,'  still  has  a  forcible  answer  to  the 
question,  '  What  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew  ?  or  what  profit  is  there  of 
circumcision  ?— Much  every  way  ;  cliiefly,  because  that  unto  them  were  com-' 
mitted  the  oracles  of  G-od.^  Not  because  God  stood  engaged  to  show  favor 
ultimately  to  the  Jews,  irrespective  of  their  character,  neither  because  the 
Gentiles  were  unconditionally  excluded  from  the  blessings  of  righteousness  ; 
but  because  God  chose  for  Abraham's  sake  to  commit  his  oracles,  i^  e.  special 
revelations  of  himself,  primarily  to  the  Jews,  thereby  giving  them  greater 
advantages,  and  securing  among  them  a  greater  proportion  of  righteousness 
than  in  any  other  nation. 

The  distinction  which  God  made  between  the  Jews  and  all  other  nations^ 
by  his  covenant  with  the  former,  is  clearly  set  forth  in  such  language  as  the 
following  : — '  Thou  art  an  holy  people  unto  the  Lord  thy  God  :  the  Lord  thy 
God  hath  chosen  thee  to  he  a  special  people  unto  himself^  above  all  people 
that  are  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  Lord  did  not  set  his  love  upon  you 
nor  choose  you,  because  ye  were  more  in  number  than  any  people  :  but  be^ 
cause  the  Lord  loved  you,  and  because  he  would  keep  the  oath  which  he  had 
sworn  unto  your  fathers,  hath  the  Lord  brought  yoU  out  with  a  mighty  hand, 
and  redeemed  you  out  of  the  house  of  bondmen,  from  the  hand  of  Pharaoh 
king  of  Egypt.'  Deut.  7:  6—8.  '  The  Lord  hath  avouched  thee  this  day 
to  be  his  peculiar  people,  as  he  hath  promised  thee,  and  that  thou  shouldst 
keep  all  his  commandments  ;  and  to  make  thee  high  above  all  natioiis  which 
he  hath  made,  in  praise,  and  in  name  and  in  honor  ;  and  that  thou  mayst 
he  an  holy  people  unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  as  hehath  spoken.^  Deut.  26:  18, 
19.  See  also  Deut.  14:  1,  2,  Ps.  135:  4.  As  'the  gifts  and  calling  of 
God  are  without  repentance,'  (i.  e.  without  change  of  mind  in  him,)  there 
is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  covenant  which  gives  to  the  Jew  peculiar  ad- 
vantages, is  still  in  full  force  ;  and  that  the  arrangements  of  God's  govern^ 
ment  over  the  world,  are  made  with  special  reference  to  the  discipline  and 
salvation  of  the  Jews,  in  order  that  all  other  nations  may  be  ultimately  blessed 
in  them.  As  Gentiles,  therefore,  we  have  reason  to  thank  God  that  the  bless^ 
ing  of  Abraham  and  his  seed,  involves  the  blessing  of  all  the  famihes  of  the 
earth* 

In  his  dealings  with  the  world,  God  has  thus  far  strictly  conformed  to  the 
terms  of  the  arrangement  made  by  his  covenant  with  Abraham  ;  and  he  has 
blessed  the  Gentiles  only  through  the  Jews. 

'To  the  Jew  pertain  the  covenants.'  In  respect  to  the  first  covenant, 
there  is  no  dispute.  The  doubtful  question  is,  whether  the  new  covenant 
(as  intimated  in  the  expression  of  Paul)  also  pertains  primarily  to  the  Jew* 
The  following  facts  decide  this  question  in  the  affirmative.  (1)  Christ,  who 
came  to  establish  the  new  covenant,  said  explicitly,  '  I  am  not  sent  but  unto 


BIRTHRIGHT   OF   ISRAEL.  403 

the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.'  (2)  He  instructed  his  disciples  also, 
in  their  first  mission,  to  '  go  not  into  the  >Yay  of  the  Gentiles — but  to  go  ra* 
ther  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the"  house  of  Israel.'  Matt.  10:  5,  6.  And  even 
Avhen  he  commissioned  them,  after  his  resurrection,  to  teach  all  nations,  he 
directed  them  to  preach  the  gospel  first  at  Jerusalem  and  in  Judea.  See  Luke 
24:  47,  Acts  1:  8.  (3)  He  gave  the  symbol  of  the  new  covenant  only  to 
Jews.  Matt.  26:  27.  (4)  The  new  covenant  was  promised  to  the  same 
people  as  the  first  covenant,  i.  e.,  '  to  the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of 
Judah'— the  people  whose  fathers  God  led  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt. — - 
(5)  Paul,  though  he  was  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  acted  in  all  cases 
according  to  the  foregoing  instructions  of  Christ  to  his  disciples  ;  preaching 
the  gospel  first  to  the  Jew,  and  turning  to  the  Gentile  only  when  rejected  by 
the  Jew. 

Up  to  the  time  of  Paul's  conversion,  there  had  been  no  preaching  to  the 
Gentiles.  About  the  same  time  that  he  was  called  to  be  an  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles,  the  interview  between  Cornelius  and  Peter  took  place,  which  .was 
the  opening  of  the  door  to  the  Gentiles.  Hence  it  appears  that  the  whole 
of  Christ's  personal  ministry,  and  the  first  five  years  of  the  personal  miniS' 
try  of  his  apostles,  were  given  exclusively  to  the  Jews.  We  may  form  some 
estimate  of  the  number  of  these  first  Jewish  converts  to  Christianity,  from 
the  following  facts  : — 1st.  There  were  upwards  of  five  hundred  who  were 
called  brethren,  previous  to  Christ's  ascension.  1  Cor.  15:  6.  2d.  Three 
thousand  were  converted  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  (It  may  be  said  of  these, 
that  they  were  Parthians,  Medes,  &c.  But  it  should  be  noticed  that  they 
are  before  spoken  of  as  '  Jews,  devout  men,  out  of  every  nation  under 
heaven,  dwelling  at  Jerusalem  ;'  that  they  are  addressed  by  Peter  as  ■  men 
of  Israel ;'  that  they  were  assembled  at  Jerusalem  at  a  Jewish  feast ;  and 
that  the  subsequent  conduct  of  Peter  and  others  to  Cornelius,  shows  that  they 
had  never  before  preached  to  the  Gentiles.)  3d.  We  find  shortly  after  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  that  the  number  of  believers  was  about  five  thousand,  in 
Jerusalem.  And  agahi  soon  afterwards  it  is  said,  '  Believers  were  the  more 
added  to  the  Lord,  multitudes  both  of  men  and  women.'  Acts  4:  4,  5:  14. 
4th.  Paul  preached  first  to  the  Jews,  and  confounded  them,  at  Damas- 
cus. 5th.  About  the  time  of  his  conversion,  we  read,  ^  then  had  the  churches 
rest  throughout  all  Jadea,  and  Galilee,  and  Samaria,  and  were  edified ;  and 
Avalking  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  comfort  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  were 
multiplied.''  All  this  was  done  previous  to  the  opening  of  the  door  to  the 
Gentiles,  by  the  vision  of  Cornelius  and  the  preaching  of  Peter.  Adding  to 
this,  the  fact  that  the  ministry  of  all  the  apostles  afterwards,  was  mainly  de- 
voted to  the  Jews— also  that  it  was  the  rule  even  of  the  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles,  as  before  mentioned,  to  preach  to  the  Jews  first,  and  to  turn  to  the  Gen- 
tiles only  when  rejected  by  the  Jews, — we  see  that  the  root  and  first-fruits  of 
the  primitive  church  were  Jews  :  thus,  that  God  literally  fulfilled  his  prom- 
ises to  Abraham  and  the  fathers  ;  that  he  hterally  gave  the  new  covenant  as 
well  as  the  old,  to  '  the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Judah.'  We  see 
also  the  peculiar  propriety  of  Paul's  address  to  the  Thessalonians  :  '  Ye  brethv 
ren,  became  followers  of  the  churches  of  God,  which  in  Judea  are  in  Christ; 


404  BIRTimiGIIT   OF   ISKAEL. 

Jesus.'  The  'primitive  church  of  the  primitive  church  were  Jews,  Accord- 
ing to  the  parable  of  the  weddmg  supper,  God  did  not  send  out  into  the  high- 
ways and  hedges,  until  after  he  had  invited  the  more  respectable  guests. 

Thus  the  fact  is  established  that  the  same  partiality  for  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, which  was  manifested  from  the  beginning  through  the  Mosaic  dispensa- 
tion, also  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  publication  of  the  gospel,  and 
controlled  his  proceedings  in  the  dispensation  of  the  new  covenant.  Our 
inference  then  is,  that  there  is  nothing  in  that  partiality  inconsistent  with  the 
spirit  of  the  new  dispensation ;  and  hence,  that  that  partiality  still  exists.  It 
was  not  surely  in  the  time  of  Christ,  a  partiality  originating  in  the  merits 
of  the  Jews  of  that  generation,  but  in  God's  love  and  promises  to  Abraham 
and  the  fathers.  These  reasons  for  it  still  exist,  in  as  full  force  now  as  then. 
Whatever  may  be  their  character,  we  have  Paul's  assertion  that  '  they  are 
beloved  for  their  father's  sake.' 

We  refer  the  reader  to  the  following  passages,  as  showing  the  priority  of 
the  Jews  in  respect  to  the  offer  and  reception  of  the  gospel :  Matt.  10:  5, 
6,  15:  22—26,  27:  11,  37.  Luke  1:  33,  68—80,  24:  47.  Jno.  4: 
22.  Acts  3:  25,  26,  13:  16,  26,  46,  28:  17—28.  Rom.  1:  16,  2:  9, 
10,     15:  8,  9.     1  Thess.  2:  14.     James  1:  1.     Rev.  ch.  7,     14:  1—6. 

OBJECTIONS. 

I.  It  may  be  objected,  that  in  bringing  in  Christ  and  the  gospel  through 
the  Jews,  God  accomplished  the  object  he  had  in  view  in  separating  them 
from  the  nations ;  and  that  he  has  thenceforth  regarded  them  in  no  peculiar 
sense  as  his  ov/n  people  ;  in  other  words,  that  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
when  the  Mosaic  theocracy  terminated,  God's  interest  for  the  Jewish  nation 
was  merged  and  lost  in  his  general  interest  for  the  world. 

1.  If  this  be  true,  we  ask,  why  was  not  the  nation  itself  merged  in  other 
nations  ?  Their  history  since,  is  a  most  perfect  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy 
that  he  would  '  sift  them  among  all  nations,  .  .  .  yet  shall  not  the  least  grain 
fall  to  the  earth.'  Amos  9:  9.  '  Though  I  make  a  full  end  of  all  nations 
whither  I  have  scattered  thee,  yet  will  I  not  make  a  full  end  of  thee  ;  but  I 
will  correct  thee  in  measure,  and  will  not  leave  thee  altogether  unpunished.' 
In  destroying  Jerusalem,  and  dissolving  their  political  existence,  and  causing 
the  daily  sacrifice  to  cease,  he  scourged  the  nation,  but  did  not  destroy  it. 
And  even  while  he  scattered  them  among  all  nations,  mstead  of  destroying 
their  national  spirit  of  unity,  he  increased  it  and  proved  its  strength.  They 
have  outlived  the  Roman  Empire  that  trod  them  down ;  so  that  it  may  be 
said,  that  God  has  destroyed  before  their  eyes  the  rod  with  which  he  scourged 
them,  and  they  have  outlived  their  punishment.  They  have  seen  an  eccle- 
siastical empire  rise  out  of  the  ruins  of  the  kingdom  that  destroyed  them  ; 
and  again  they  have  suffered  by  this  new  rod,  tortures  equalled  only  by  those 
that  went  before ;  and  still  they  outlive  their  punishment.  They  are  the 
only  nation  that  we  are  acquainted  with  in  the  world,  that  has  retained  its 
individuality  since  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  This  wonderful  fact  is,  of 
itself,  Avithout  reference  to  prophecy,  sufficient  proof  that  God  has  ulterior 
views  concerning  them. 


BIRTHRIGHT  OF  ISRAEL.  405 

2.  The  termination  of  the  Mosaic  theocracy  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem,  was  not  the  termination  of  the  Abrahamic  nation,  but  rather  a  return  to 
the  simphcity  of  the  unorganized  state  of  their  fathers.  They  have  since,  Hke 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  been  strangers  and  pilgrims,  seeking  a  city  out 
of  sight.  In  fact,  the  Jews  are  now  eighteen  hundred  years  older  than  any 
other  nation,  in  a  discipline  which  is  absolutely  necessary  to  fit  them  for  the 
final  kingdom  of  God.  So  that  so  far  as  paternal  scourging  and  discipline 
can  indicate  God's  ulterior  purposes  concerning  any  nation,  there  is  abundant 
evidence  that  the  Jews  are  yet  destined  to  the  glorious  distinction  which  God  ^ 
promised  to  Abraham. 

3.  The  fact  that  the  Jews  are  yet  on  the  stage,  and  in  all  the  pecuharity 
of  their  ancient  character,  shows  that  the  drama  in  which  they  are  called  to 
play  a  distinguished  part,  was  not  finished  at  the  coming  of  Christ  and  the 
introduction  of  the  gospel.  By  the  manifest  providence  of  God,  the  Jews, 
who  were  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  the  principal  actors  on  the  stage,  are 
still  in  existence,  and  still  as  great  a  wonder  to  the  world  as  ever. 

4.  By  their  dispersion,  their  suifering,  and  consequent  peculiar  discipline,      ^ 
they  are  manifestly  fitted  to  become  principal  actors  in  the  predicted  denoue- 
ment which  shall  subject  the  world  to  a  federal  theocracy.  T" 

II.  The  ^awful  wickedness'  of  the  Jews,  may  be  urged  by  many,  as  inconsis- 
tent with  the  supposition  that  they  are  still  regarded  by  God  as  his  chosen 
people.  To  this  objection  it  may  be  replied,  that  it  is  by  no  means  certain 
that  the  Jews  are,  or  have  been,  more  wicked  than  other  nations,  except  it 
be  at  some  particular  periods  of  their  history  ;  and  that  at  those  periods  God 
visited  them  with  such  signal  judgments  as  showed  his  impartial  justice,  and 
manifested  to  the  world  his  hatred  of  iniquity,  though  it  was  found  in  his  cho- 
sen people.  He  declared  to  them  explicitly  by  Moses,  that  it  was  not  for  their 
own  righteousness  that  he  was  about  to  give  them  the  proiaised  land,  but  that 
he  chose  them  of  his  own  free  love,  and  because  he  would  keep  the  covenant 
which  he  had  made  with  their  fathers.  '  Know  therefore,'  says  he,  '  that  the 
Lord  thy  God,  he  is  the  faithful  God,  who  heepeth  covenant  and  mercy  with 
them  that  love  him,  to  a  thousand  generations^^  &c.  See  Deut.  7:  7 — 10, 
and  9:  5,  6.  As  a  thousand  generations  are  not  yet  passed  since  the  cove- 
nant was  made  with  Abraham,  it  must,  according  to  this  passage,  remain  still 
in  force. 

We  admit  that  at  some  particular  periods  in  Jewish  history,  their  wicked- 
ness has  been  very  great.  This  was  the  case  just  before  the  Babylonish  cap- 
tivity, as  is  manifest  from  the  testimony  of  the  prophets,  who  were  sent  to 
rebuke  and  warn  them.  It  was  because  of  their  iniquities,  that  they  were 
suffered  to  be  carried  into  captivity.  Again,  the  generation  that  crucified 
Christ,  and  rejected  his  apostles  and  his  gospel,  was  most  wicked  of  all.  Of 
this  generation  it  was  said,  that  all  the  righteous  blood  which  had  been  shed 
on  the  earth,  from  Abel  to  Zacharias,  should  come  upon  them.  But  God  has 
said  he  will '  visit  the  miquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children  [only]  to  the 
third  and  fourth  generation.'  And  in  the  history  of  the  wickedness  and  suf- 
fering of  three  or  four  generations  subsequent  to  the  crucifixion  of  Christ, 
this  threatening  of  God  seems  to  have  been  fulfilled.    The  limitation  of  tho 


406  BIRTHRIGHT   OF  ISRAEL. 

special  wickedness,  and  consequent  suffering  of  the  Jews,  to  those  generations, 
removes  the  odium  cast  upon  them  by  the  Gentiles  as  being  'awfully  wicked.' 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  guilt  of  that  nation  in  rejecting  the 
gospel,  pertained  especially  to  the  generation  that  lived  in  the  time  of  Christ 
and  of  the  primitive  church,  and  the  generations  immediately  following  :  for 
in  rejecting  the  Christianity  of  subsequent  ages,  they  have  rejected  not  Chris- 
tianity itself,  but  only  its  counterfeits.  In  the  introduction  of  any  new  doc- 
trine, two  things  are  to  be  looked  for  as  the  causes  of  its  rejection  by  the 
common  people  :  1st,  the  misrepresentations  of  counterfeit  teachers  and 
proselytes  of  the  doctrine  ;  2d,  the  misrepresentations  of  the  leaders  and 
teachers  of  those  who  reject  it.  Both  of  these  causes  unquestionably  operated 
in  the  separation  of  the  Jews  from  the  gospel,  and  their  continued  rejection 
of  it,  since.  The  common  people  heard  Christ  gladly,  until  they  were  drawn 
away  from  him  by  their  teachers.  Paul  mentions  those  who  as  false  teach- 
ers of  Christianity,  '  cause  the  way  of  truth  to  be  evil  spoken  of.'  At  this 
day,  the  Rabbins  of  the  Jews  and  the  Doctors  of  Christianity,  are  virtually 
leagued,  for  the  separation  of  Jews  and  Christians  from  one  another,  and 
from  Christ.  Imprudence  also,  on  the  part  of  professors  of  Christianity,  may 
have  had  some  influence,  as  well  as  misrepresentations.    See  Ezek.  cti.  34. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  great  part  of  the  odium  which  the  Gentiles 
have  cast  on  the  Jews  for  their  wickedness,  has  been  the  result  of  a  deeply 
rooted  prejudice  and  hatred  on  the  part  of  the  Gentiles,  or  even  of  the  ava- 
rice of  their  oppressors  seeking  a  pretext  for  extortion.  The  seditions  and 
rebellions  of  the  Jews  against  the  governments  that  ruled  over  them  previous 
to  the  dissolution  and  dispersion  of  the  nation,  excited  the  intense  hatred  of 
their  enemies,  who  took  pains  to  infuse  the  same  hatred  into  the  minds  of  all 
nations  among  whom  the  Jews  were  scattered.  And  since  the  time  of  their 
last  dispersion,  their  history  has  been  in  great  part  a  dismal  record  of  the 
contempt,  extortions,  banishments,  and  even  cruel  massacres,  which  they  have 
suffered  from  the  hands  of  the  Gentiles.  Denied  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
common  citizens,  driven  from  land  to  land,  and  stigmatized  by  both  Christians 
and  Mahometans,  as  an  accursed  race  ;  it  is  no  wonder  that,  bhnded  as  they 
have  been  to  the  gospel,  they  should  sometimes  resort  to  unjustifiable  means 
of  supporting  themselves  against  their  oppressors.  The  wickedness  with  which 
they  have  been  charged,  may  have  been  in  part  the  natural  reaction  of  the 
-wickedness  of  their  enemies. 

NUMMARY   OF  THE   ARGUMENT  FOR  THE   PERPETUITY  OP   GOD'S   SPECIAL  FA- 
VOR  TO   THE  JEWS. 

I.  The  covenant  with  Abraham  is  unlimited,  or  rather  explicitly  perpetual.. 
(See  the  passages  which  describe  the  covenant,  before  quoted ;  especially 
Gen.  17:  1—8.) 

II.  The  history  of  the  Jews  which  the  scriptures  contaui,  is  a  practical 
commentary  on  this  covenant,  showing,  1st,  that  the  promises  specially  per- 
tained to  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham  ;  and  2d,  that  these  promises  were 
wholly  independent  of  the  personal  merits  of  the  Jews.  By  referring  to  Gen. 
46:  3,  and  Exodus  1:  7,  for  example,  we  find  that  God's  promise  to  multiply 


BIRTHRIGHT   OF  ISRAEL.  407 

the  seed  of  Abraham  and  make  of  him  a  great  nation,  was  literally  fulfilled 
to  his  natural  seed.  The  105th  Psdm  describes  God's  wonderful  works  with 
the  Jews,  up  to  the  time  of  their  entering  the  land  of  Canaan.  Deut.  4:  7, 
8,  23 — 38,  is  also  descriptive  of  the  great  things  God  did  for  his  people  not- 
withstanding their  sins,  and  is  a  commentary  on  his  covenant.  See  also  Neh. 
9:  7—88. 

III.  Such  being  the  covenant,  and  its  commentary,  up  to  the  time  of 
Christ,  it  is  evident  that  it  must  be  regarded  as  remaining  beyond  that  time, 
unless  there  is  explicit  evidence  to  the  contrary.  No  such  evidence  is  found 
in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the  history  of  the  Jews  since,  but  the  contrary. 
If  it  is  said  that  the  promise  was  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and  that  seed  is 
Christ ;  and  that  the  covenant  with  the  rest  of  the  Jewish  nation  is  dissolved  ; 
we  answer,  facts  which  we  have  already  examined,  show  that  the  covenant, 
interpreted  as  above,  remained  in  force  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  was 
recognized  and  observed  by  him.  Again,  if  it  is  said  that  the  covenant  was 
dissolved  by  the  death  of  Christ,  that  the  Jews,  in  crucifying  him,  renounced 
their  birthright ;  we  answer,  as  before,  that  facts  show  that  it  remained  in 
force.  (Such  for  instance  as  the  offer  of  the  gospel  first  to  the  Jews  in  the 
preaching  of  the  apostles.)  Again,  if  it  is  said,  that  by  the  rejection  of  the 
gospel  they  lost  their  birthright ;  and  that  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
they  ceased  to  be  the  people  of  God,  we  answer,  that  their  captivity  and  dis- 
persion at  that  time  is  no  more  proof  of  the  termination  of  the  covenant,  than 
any  of  their  previous  captivities  and  calamities.  Moreover,  their  history  since 
is  a  counterbalancing  proof  of  the  continuance  of  the  covenant.  .  We  search 
through  the  New  Testament,  and  through  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Jews^ 
and  find  no  such  explicit  declaration  of  a  change  in  the  views  and  feelings  of 
God  toward  the  Jews,  as  the  importance  of  such  a  change  would  require. 
And  well  may  God  ask  those  Christians  who  assume  that  such  a  change  has 
taken  place,  '  Where  is  the  hill  of  your  mother's  divorcement  V  Isa.  50:  1. 

But  the  evidence  in  relation  to  this  matter  is  not  merely  negative,  though 
that  would  be  sufficient.  We  find  Christ  and  his  apostles  repeatedly  alluding 
to  the  coming  desolations  of  the  Jews,  and  always  adding  such  limitations  as 
show  that  the  love  and  faithfulness  of  God,  in  this  as  in  all  previous  cases^ 
stretches  over  and  beyond  the  abyss  of  their  calamities.  For  example,  Christ 
says,  '  Jerusalem  shall  be.  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  [how  long  ? — not 
for  ever,  but]  imtil  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  he  fulfilled.''  And  again,  he 
says  to  Jerusalem,  '  Your  house  is  left  unto  you  desolate,  [how  long  'i- — not 
for  ever,  but]  till  ye  shall  say^  Blessed  is  he  that  eometh  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord,^  Again,  Paul  says,-  ^  that  bHndness  in  part  is  happened  to  Israel, 
[not  for  ever,  but]  till  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in.'  And  he 
adds  an  explicit  prediction,  that  ultimately  God  will  take  away  their  sins, 
according  to  his  covenant  with  their  fathers. 

In  numerous  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  reader  will  find  further 
testimony  in  relation  to  the  future  destiny  of  the  Jews.  We  refer  to  the  fol* 
lowing,  as  some  of  the  principal: — 

Deut.  30:  1—9.  Isaiah  11:  11—13,  12:  1,  2,  51:  17,  21—23,  54; 
1—14.    Jeremiah  31:  31—40,    32:  37—41,   33:  7—9,  24—26.    Ezek. 


408  BIRTHRIGHT   OP   ISRAEL. 

36:  24—34,  37:  21—28,  39:  25—29.  Hosea  2:  T,  14—23,  3:  4,  5, 
14:  4—8.  Joel  3:  14,  16,  17,  20,  21.  Amos  9:  14—15.  Micah  4: 
6—8.     Zechariah  8:  3—8,     10:  6—12. 

CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  PREDICTED  RESTORATION. 

In  speaking  of  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  it  is  fit  that  we  should  clearly 
understand  what  is  meant  by  that  expression ;  and  that  we  should  not  think 
of  it  merely  as  a  reorganization  of  the  Jewish  nation,,  and  the  replacing  of 
them  in  the  territory  which  was  occupied  by  their  fathers.  By  the  restora- 
tion of  Israel,  as  predicted  in  the  scriptures  which  we  have  already  referred 
to  on  that  point,  it  appears  to  be  plainly  implied,  1st,  that  they  are  to  re- 
sume their  place  as  the  peculiar  people  of  God ;  and  2d,  that  they  are  to 
become  the  medium  of  God's  favor  toward  all  other  nations.  It  is  not  im- 
plied that  they  are  restored  to  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  institutions,  or  even  to 
circumcision ;  for  the  original  covenant  with  Abraham  which  constituted  his 
seed  a  royal  priesthood  to  the  world,  was  made  before  the  giving  of  the  law, 
and  also  before  circumcision,  and  of  course  was  independent  of  them.  All 
the  externals  of  Judaism  are  only  subsequent  adjuncts  to  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  it  into  effect,  and  not  con- 
stituent elements  of  that  covenant.  So  Paul  says  of  Abraham,  Rom.  4:  11, 
&c.,  *  He  received  the  seal  of  circumcision,"  a  sign  of  the  righteousness  which 
he  had  yet  being  uncircumcised.'  Again,  '  The  promise  that  he  should  be 
the  heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to  his  seed,  through  the  law, 
but,  through  the  righteousness  of  faith.'  And  again.  Gal.  3:  17,  18,  '  The 
covenant  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God,  in  Christ,  the  law,  which  w^as 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make  the 
promise  of  none  effect.  For  if  the  inheritance  be  of  the  law,  it  is  no  more 
of  promise  ;  but  God  gave  it  to  Abraham  by  promise.'  The  Jews,  in  cleav- 
ing to  the  institutions  of  Moses,  as  being  essential  to  their  inheritance,  wholly 
put  out  of  view  the  original  covenant  with  Abraham,  and  the  true  object  of 
those  institutions.  As  Christ  said  '  the  sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not 
man  for  the  sabbath  ;'  so  it  may  be  said  of  the  whole  Mosaic  economy,  and 
of  circumcision,  that  they  were  made  for  the  Jews,  and  not  the  Jews  for 
them.  And  in  restoring  the  Jews  to  their  inheritance  in  Abraham,  it  is  by 
no  means  necessary  to  replace  them  under  the  ceremonial  economy. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  probable  and  predicted  consequences  of  reinsta- 
ting the  Jews  in  the  favor  of  God,  and  giving  them  a  pre-eminence  among 
the  nations  of  the  earth. 

1.  One  of  the  first  and  most  important  efiects,  doubtless,  will  be  to  mani- 
fest and  exalt  before  all  the  world,  the  truth  and  faithfulness  of  God.  He  is 
called  by  Moses,  emphatically,  the  faithful  god  ;  and  the  constant  testi- 
mony of  the  Bible  concerning  him  is,  that  his  word  shall  stand  forever — that 
his  truth  shall  endure  to  all  generations.  Now  his  promise  to  Abraham  was, 
that  he  would  give  to  him  and  his  seed  after  him  the  land  of  Canaan  for  an 
everlasting  possession  ;  and  that  in  his  seed  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should 
be  blessed.  And  when  he  called  the  Israelites  forth  out  of  Egypt,  his  declared 
object  was  to  make  them  '  a  special  people  unto  himself  above  all  people  that 


BIRTHRIGHT  OP  ISRAEL.  409 

arc  itpon  tKe  face  of  the  earth  ;'  and  '  that  he  might  keep  the  oath  which  he 
had  sworn  unto  their  fathers.'  But  although  the  Jews,  during  the  time  of 
their  national  prosperity,  enjoyed  distinguished  privileges,  and  were  in 
many  respects  a  pecuUar  people,  as  compared  with  other  nations, — yet  they 
became  in  a  short  time  degenerate  and  corrupt,  and,  as  Ezeldel  declares,  the 
name  of  the  Lord  was  profaned  by  them  among  the  heathen.  Having  been 
at  length  expelled  from  their  own  land,  they  have  long  been  '  a  hissing  and  a 
by-word  among  all  nations  whither  they  were  scattered.'  What  then  shall  we 
say  to  these  things  ?  Shall  this  reproach  never  be  removed  ?  Shall  it  be 
said  that  God  undertook  to  train  up  a  nation  for  himself, — to  make  them  '  a 
holy  people,'  who  should  show  forth  his  glory  ;  and  that  he  has  utterly  failed 
of  accomplishing  his  object  ?  If  it  be  so — if  he  fails  in  this  instance, — what 
security  have  we  that  he  will  not  fail  in  any  or  all  other  instances  ?  And  what 
assurance  can  we  have  that  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  will  ever  become  the 
kingdoms  of  Christ  t  When  the  people  of  Israel  had  greatly  provoked  the 
anger  of  God,  by  their  apostasy,  the  voices  of  the  prophets  were  heard  de- 
nouncing judgments,  and  predicting  the  desolation  which  should  come  upon 
the  nation :  yet  still,  looking  beyond  the  period  of  their  rejection  and  their 
calamities,  they  foretold  (as  our  previous  quotations  have  shown)  that  in  the 
last  days  the  scattered  house  of  Israel  should  return  and  be  built  up ;  that 
Jerusalem  should  then  be  holy,  and  be  called  '  the  city  of  righteousness, 
THE  FAITHFUL  CITY ;'  that  '  whcrcas  it  had  been  forsaken  and  hated,  it 
should  become  ^an  eternal  excellency,  a  joy  op  many  generations  ;' 
moreover,  that  *  the  Gentiles  should  come  to  her  light,  and  kings  to  the 
brightness  of  her  rising ;'  and  that  the  forces  and  wealth  of  the  Gentiles 
should  be  made  subservient  to  her  exaltation. 

Thus  we  may  see  that  the  restoration  and  spiritual  renovation  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation,  by  fulfilling  these  glorious  promises,  would  confirm  the  truth  of  the 
word  of  God,  overthrow  unbelief,  and  so  prepare  the  way  for  the  reign  of 
righteousness  through  faith. 

2.  Another  consequence  of  restoring  the  Jews  and  exalting  them  to  a  lead- 
ing position  among  the  nations,  will  be  the  humiliation  of  the  Gentiles. — 
The  Gentile  nations  which  have  long  held  possession  of  the  land  given  by 
covenant  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  have  not  only  disregarded  the  claims  of 
the  true  heirs,  and  the  purpose  of  God  concerning  them,  but  have  even  exul- 
ted in  their  downfall,  have  rejoiced  in  their  calamity,  and  have  trodden  them 
under  foot.  '  Thus  they  have  despised  my  people,'  says  the  Lord  by  the 
prophet,  '  that  they  should  be  no  more  a  nation  before  them.'  But  God  has 
declared  his  purpose  to  judge  and  punish  the  nations  for  their  impious  disre- 
gard of  his  covenant  with  Israel.  Even  the  Jews'  restoration,  which  we  find 
to  be  so  clearly  and  fully  foretold  in  the  language  w^e  have  referred  to  in 
the  prophets,  is  not  more  unequivocally  predicted  than  are  God's  judgments 
against  those  nations  that  have  abused  his  people.  Hear  his  rebuke  of  Edom 
for  this  offense  : — '  For  thy  violence  against  thy  brother  Jacob,  shame  shall 
cover  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  cut  off  for  ever.  In  the  day  that  strangers 
carried  away  captive  his  forces,  and  foreigners  entered  into  his  gates  and  cast 
lots  upon  Jerusalem,  even  thou  wast  as  one  of  them ;  but  thou  shouldst  not 
51 


410  BIRTHRIGHT    OF    ISRAEL. 

Jiave  looked  on  the  day  of  thy  brother  in  the  day  that  he  became  a  stranger  j 
heither  shouldst  thou  have  rejoiced  over  the  children  of  Judah  in  the  day  of 
their  destruction ;  neither  shouldst  thou  have  spoken  proudly  in  the  day  of 
distress.  Thou  shouldst  not  have  entered  into  the  gate  of  my  people  in  the 
day  of  their  calamity  ;  yea,  thou  shouldst  not  have  looked  on  their  affliction 
in  the  day  of  their  calamity,  nor  have  laid  hands  on  their  substance  in  the 
day  of  their  calamity  ;  neither  shouldst  thou  have  delivered  up  those  of  his 
that  did  remain  in  the  day  of  distress.  For  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  near  upon 
all  the  heathen :  as  thou  hast  done^  it  shall  be  done  unto  thee  :  thy  reward 
shall  return  upon  thine  own  head.'  Obad.  10^ — 15.  Language  similar  in  pur- 
port to  the  foregoing  is  used  by  many  of  the  prophets  ;  and  indeed  it  is  usual 
to  find,  in  immediate  connection  with  the  foretold  restoration  of  the  Jews,  pre- 
dicted vengeance  against  their  oppressors^     We  will  quote  a  few  specimens^ 

'  I  will  contend  with  him  that  contendeth  with  thee^  and  I  will  save  thy 
children.  And  I  will  feed  them  that  oppress  thee  with  their  own  flesh.'  &Cj 
'  Behold,  I  have  taken  out  of  thine  hand  the  cup  of  trembhng,  even  the  dregs 
of  the  cup  of  my  fury  ;  thou  shalt  no  more  drink  it  again  :  but  I  will  put  it 
into  the  hand  of  them  that  afflict  thee,'  &c.  Isa.  49:  26,  26,  51:  22,  23v 
The  following  passage  forcibly  describes  the  exaltation  of  Israel,  and  the  hu- 
mihation  of  the  Gentiles: — 'The  sons  of  strangers  shall  build  up  thy  walls,  and 

their  kings  shall  minister  to  thee For  the  nation  and  kingdom  that 

will  not  serve  thee  shall  perish  ;  yea^  those  nations  shall  be  utterly  wasted* 
The  sons  also  of  them  that  afflicted  thee  shall  come  bending  to  thee  ;  and  all 
they  that  despised  thee  shall  bow  themselves  down  at  the  soles  of  thy  feet : 
and  they  shall  call  thee  '  The  City  of  the  Lord,'  '  The  Zion  of  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel.'  Isa.  60:  10,  12,  14.  The  prophet  Joel  says  also,—'  In  those 
days,  and  in  that  time,  when  I  shall  bring  again  the  captivity  of  Judah  and 
Jerusalem,  I  will  also  gather  all  nations,  and  will  bring  them  down  into  the 
valley  of  Jehoshaphatj  and  will  plead  with  them  for  my  people,  and  for  my 
heritage  Israel,  whom  they  have  scattered  among  the  nations,  and  parted 

my  land Let  the  heathen  be  wakened,  and  come  up  to  the  valley  of 

Jehoshaphat ;  for  there  will  I  sit  to  judge  all  the  heathen  round  about.' 
Joel  3:  1,  2,  12. 

These  are  only  a  few  of  the  passages  found  in  the  prophetic  writings,  touch- 
ing this  subject.  For  further  similar  testimony,  the  reader  may  examine  the 
following  references.  Deut.  30:  7.  Jer.  12:  14—17.  30:  16.  Ezek.  chaps, 
25,  26,  35;  and  36: 1—8.  Zeph  .3:  19.  Zech.  2:  8,  9.    12:  3,  4,  9.  14: 12. 

By  examining  the  foregoing  quotations  and  references,  it  will  appear  that 
the  cause  w^hich  God  usually  assigned  for  the  punishments  with  which  he 
threatened  various  nations,  was  their  contempt  of  his  people,  and  the  wrongs 
which  they  had  done  to  them.  And  we  conclude,  from  the  clear  indications 
of  prophecy,  that  the  approaching  judgment  of  the  Gentiles — Hhe  battle  of 
the  great  day,'  which  shall  break  in  pieces  the  kingdom^  of  this  world' — Avill 
be  made  to  turn  chiefly  on  this  point ;  viz.,  the  resistance  which  the  infidel 
powers  of  the  Gentiles  will  make  to  the  movements  of  God,  by  which  he  will 
accomplish  his  purpose  of  placing  the  Jews  at  the  head  of  the  nations,  and 
establish  his  own  dominion  over  all  the  earth. 


BIRTHRIGHT    OF   ISRAEL.  411 

The  elevation  of  the  Jews  to  the  commanding  positon  we  have  spoken  of, 
will  doubtless  be  so  accomplished,  that  while  the  Gentiles  are  humbled,  all 
occasion  of  pride  and  boasting  will  be  cut  off  from  the  Jcavs.  The  Jews  will 
be  humbled  when  thej  are  made  to  receive  the  gospel  of  Christ  through  the 
Gentiles  ;  when  thej  shall  remember  their  own  evil  ways- — their  long  and 
obstinate  unbelief;  (See  Ezek.  36:  31,  Zeph.  3:  11 ;)  and  the  Gentiles  will 
be  humbled  by  being  made  to  acknowledge  the  Jewish  nation  as  the  federal 
head  of  the  world.  Thus,  according  to  the  words  of  Isaiah,  '  The  loftiness 
of  man  shall  be  bowed  down,  and  the  haughtiness  of  men  shall  be  made  low  ; 
and  the  Lord  alone  shall  be  exalted  in  that  day.'  ^ 

3.  We  conclude  that  another  most  important  consequence  of  establishing 
the  JcAvs  as  the  '  Royal  Nation,'  would  be  to  give  the  greatest  facility  to  the 
universal  pubHcation  of  the  gospel,  and  the  subjugation  of  the  world  to 
Christ.  What  nation  would  be  so  well  qualified  as  the  Jews,  both  from  their 
historical  character,  and  from  the  lessons  which  they  must  have  learned  in 
their  long  and  wide  dispersion,  to  become  the  head  of  a  federal  Theocracy, 
Having  seen  the  operation  of  the  various  laws  of  human  governments,  and 
felt  the  miseries  of  oppression,  they  could  well  appreciate  the  value  of  just  j 
and  humane  statutes.  Again ;  when  '  the  vail  shall  be  taken  away  from  -* 
their  hearts,'  and  '  the  Deliverer  out  of  Zion  shall  have  turned  away  ungod' 
iiness  from  Jacob,'  what  people  would  be  so  well  fitted  as  they,  to  become 
missionaries  of  the  gospel  in  all  the  world  ?  Having  been  scattered  among 
^  all  nations  and  tongues,'  and  become  acquainted  with  all  forms  of  religion ; 
and  having  explored  the  dark  abodes  of  heathen  idolatry  and  superstition ; 
who  would  be  so  capable  as  they  of  adapting  themselves,  as  preachers  of  the 
word,  to  the  peculiarities  and  wants  of  all  the  Gentile  nations  ?  We  shall  do 
well  to  remember  the  declaration  of  Isaiah  concerning '  the  last  days'— when 
Hhe  moimtain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of  the  moun^ 
tains,  and  all  nations  shall  flow  unto  it  '—that  then,  '  out  of  ZioiS"  shall  go 
forth  the  law,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem.' 

When  the  chosen  people  shall  be  restored  to  their  inheritance,  and 
'  the  Spirit  shall  be  poured  upon  them  from  on  high,'  (see  Isa,  32:  15,) 
then  may  we  expect  to  witness  a  more  complete  fulfilment  of  that  prophecy 
of  Joel  which  Peter  quoted:  viz.,  '  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days, 
(saith  God,)  I  ivill  pour  out  my  sjmHt  upon  all /?esA,'  &c.  We  know  that 
this  prophecy  had  an  incipient  fulfilment  (a  fulfilment  in  miniature,  so  to 
speak)  on  the'^day  of  Pentecost.  Yet  Ave  cannot  doubt  that  a  more  full  and 
and  glorious  accomplishment  awaits  it  hereafter,  which  shall  realize  the  truth 
of  another  inspired  prediction,  that  Hhe  earth  shall  he  full  of  the  knoivledge 
of  the  Lord  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea.'' 

DUTIES    OF   THE    GENTILES   TOWARD    THE   JEWS. 

.We  have  considered  the  nature  of  God's  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his 
seed ;  we  have  shown  that  the  promises  of  that  covenant  are  both  general  and 
specific — that  they  are  promises  of  both  spiritual  and  physical  blessings  ;  that 
they  are  made  to  the  literal  seed  of  Abraham  ;  and  that  the  literal  seed  shall 
at  length  become  the  true  spiritual  seed.     We  have  shown  also,  that  the 


412  BIRTHRIGHT   OF  ISRAEL. 

distinction  which  was  originally  made  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  still  re- 
mains ;  that  in  God's  deahngs  with  mankind  he  has  acted  in  accordance  with 
that  distinction ;  and  that  tlie  preservation  of  the  Jews  as  a  distinct  nation 
for  so  many  ages,  even  to  the  present  day,  through  miparalleled  persecutions 
and  sufferings,  is  strong  presumptive  evidence  of  some  great  ultimate  design 
of  God  concerning  them.  And  we  have  seen  sufficient  evidence  of  God's 
design  to  restore  them  to  the  land  given  to  their  fathers ;  to  purify  them, 
pour  out  his  Spirit  upon  them,  and  make  them  a  holy  people  ;  to  give  them 
pre-eminence  over  the  nations  of  the  world  ;  and  so  to  '  bless  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth'  through  them.  We  come  now  to  the  interesting  and  practically 
important  inquiry,  What  are  the  duties  and  obligations  of  the  Gentiles  to- 
ward the  chosen  people  ? 

1.  And  first  we  may  place  a  loyal  acJanoivledgment  of  their  birthright. 
If  in  God's  promise  to  Abraham  that  he  would  '  be  a  God  unto  him  and  to 
his  seed  after  him,'  and  that '  in  his  seed  all  nations  should  be  blessed,' — 
God  thereby  became  the  husband  of  Israel,  and  constituted  Israel  the  hus- 
band of  all  other  nations  ;  (as  has  been  shown  ;)  if  this  arrangement  still  re- 
mains, forasmuch  as  the  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance — 
and  we  have  seen  that  hitherto  he  has  blessed  the  Gentiles  through  the  Jews, 
— then  the  Gentiles  are  bound,  now,  to  regard  the  Jews  as  the  husband  of 
the  nations.  And  the  duty  of  the  Gentiles  toward  them  is  determined,  not 
by  their  character  and  conduct,  but  by  the  known  arrangements  and  pur- 
poses of  God.  A  spirit  of  true  loyalty  to  God,  says  concerning  them,  '  How- 
ever great  may  be  their  sin,  and  however  fierce  may  be  the  anger  of  the  Lord 
against  them,  Israel  is  still  our  husband ;  and  we  will,  so  far  as  is  consistent 
with  our  allegiance  to  the  moral  government  of  God,  love  and  honor  Israel,  as 
our  husband,  for  God's  sake.'  From  such  passages  as  1  Pet.  2:  18,  where 
the  apostle  enjoins  on  servants  to  '  be  obedient  to  their  masters,  not  only  to 
the  good  and  gentle,  but  also  to  the  froward,'  we  are  taught  that  in  the  mu- 
tual relations  which  subsist  among  mankind,  the  conduct  of  the  one  is  not  to 
be  governed  by  the  wrong  doings  of  the  other,  but  by  the  appointment  of 
God.  And  we  see  no  reason  why  Peter's  address  to  wives  might  not  prop- 
erly apply  to  the  Gentiles : — '  Be  in  subjection  to  your  own  husbands  ;  that 
if  any  obey  not  the  word,  they  may  without  the  w^ord  be  won  by  the  conver- 
sation of  the  wives  ;  while  they  behold  your  chaste  conversation,  coupled  with 
fear.'  On  this  principle,  it  appears  that  the  true  way  for  the  Gentiles  to  seek 
the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  is  practically  to  acknowledge  the  superiority  of 
their  birthright,  and  to  win  them,  rather  by  modesty  and  the  arts  of  love, 
than  by  attempting,  as  has  often  been  done,  to  dragoon  them  into  the  gospel. 

2.  Another  obligation  which  the  Gentiles  owe  the  Jews,  is,  gratitude  for 
the  benefits  mankind  have  received  through  them.  We  might  speak  of  the 
advantages  they  have  conferred  on  the  world  by  their  preservation  and  im- 
provement of  the  arts  of  civilization.  For  when  most  other  nations  were  sunk 
in  the  darkness  of  barbarism,  the  Jews  were  cultivating  the  arts  of  civilized 
life.  "  During  the  feudal  ages,"  says  a  writer  in  the  Edinburgh  Encyclope- 
dia, "the  Jews,  from  their  aversion  to  war,  and  their  love  of  gain,  seem  to 
have  been  the  most  opulent^  as  well  as  the  most  enlightened  portion  of  the 


BIRTHRIGHT  OF  ISRAEL.  413 

laity.  They  were  the  only  bankers  of  the  period.  It  is  supposed  that  they 
invented  bills  of  exchange."  The  celebrated  author  of  'Ivanhoe'  says,  "  The 
Jews,  both  male  and  female,  possessed  and  practised  the  medical  science  in 
all  its  branches  ;  and  the  monarchs  and  powerful  barons  of  the  time  frequently 
committed  themselves  to  the  charge  of  some  experienced  sage  among  this 
despised  people,  when  wounded  or  hi  sickness.  The  aid  of  the  Jewish  phy- 
sicians was  not  the  less  eagerly  sought  after,  though  a  general  belief  prevailed 
among  the  Christians,  that  the  Jewish  Rabbins  were  deeply  acquainted  with 
the  occult  sciences,  and  particularly  with  the  cabalistic  art,  wliich  had  its 
name  and  origin  in  the  studies  of  the  sages  of  Israel." 

But  not  to  insist  on  any  advantages  of  this  kind,  we  will  speak  of  higher 
benefits.  From  the  Jews  we  have  received  the  Bible.  Not  only  the  Old 
Testament,  but  also  the  New,  was  written  by  Jews.  Had  we  received  only 
the  Old  Testament,  we  might  justly  regard  it  as  a  highly  valuable  acquisition  ; 
forasmuch  as  its  doctrines  and  its  history,  which  give  us  so  much  knowledge 
of  the  character  and  will  of  the  true  God,  and  of  his  dealings  with  mankind, 
have  doubtless  done  more  to  advance  the  best  interests  of  the  human  race, 
than  aU  the  ethical  systems  of  the  wisest  heathen  philosophers.  But  when, 
above  all,  we  consider  that  we  have  received  the  gift  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
the  gospel,  through  the  Jews,  we  shall,  besides  gratitude  to  God  as  the  pri- 
mary giver,  feel  still  more  deeply  what  respect  and  affection  we  owe  to  the 
Jews  as  the  medium  through  which  salvation  has  been  sent  to  the  world. 
The  Gentiles,  as  formerly  mentioned,  were  only  branches  of  the  primitive 
church  ;  the  Jews  were  its  root  and  stock  ;  and  it  should  be  taken  into  the 
account  that  the  Jews  were  the  only  nation  at  that  time,  in  which  the  begin- 
ning of  a  church  could  be  made.  Nearly  all  the  moral  and  spiritual  material 
in  the  world,  was  at  that  time  in  the  Jewish  church.  The  Bible,  with  all  its 
influences  was  among  them ;  and  they  alone  were  prepared  for  the  reception 
of  Christ,  by  the  promises,  and  by  the  consequent  expectation  of  him.  Had 
Christ  commenced  his  ministry  in  any  other  nation,  it  is  probable  that  he 
would  have  found  but  very  few  followers.  God,  who  does  nothing  in  vain, 
had  been  disciplining  that  nation  for  thousands  of  years ;  and  more  especially, 
immediately  previous  to  the  appearance  of  Christ,  John  the  Baptist  was  sent 
for  the  special  object  of  preparing  a  highway  for  the  coming  of  God.  Hence 
Christ  said  truly  that  '  salvation  is  of  the  Jews."*  Paul  also  declared  that 
'  the  Gentiles  were  their  debtors,  and  were  made  partakers  of  their  spiritual 
things.'     Rom.  15:  26. 

THE  AGENCY  OP  THE  JEWS  IN  THE  CONVERSION  OF  THE  WORLD. 

It  must  not  be  inferred  from  what  we  have  said,  that  we  subscribe  to  the 
theory  of  those  who  think  that  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  is  the  first  thing  to 
be  attended  to  in  order  to  the  estabhshment  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the 
world.  As  it  is  an  important  part  of  our  object  in  this  discussion  of  the  re- 
lations of  the  Jews  to  God  and  the  world,  to  lead  believers  to  comprehensive 
views  of  God's  plan  of  operations,  and  bring  their  minds  to  the  position  ne- 
cessary to  their  co-operation  with  him,  we  will  present,  in  conclusion,  a  sketch 
of  the  order  in  which  we  believe  the  gospel  wHl  go  forth  to  the  nations. 


414  BIRTHRIGHT   OP   ISRAEL. 

Paul,  speaking  to  the  Gentiles,  says — 'As  ye  in  times  past  have  not  believ- 
ed God,  yet  have  now  obtained  mercy  through  their  [the  Jews']  unbelief; 
even  so  have  they  also  now  not  believed,  that  through  your  mercy  they  also 
may  obtain  mercy."*  Rom.  11:  30,  31.  Now  it  is  evident  that  the  Jews 
have  not  yet  obtained  the  mercy  here  promised,  and  of  course  that  a  portion 
of  the  Gentiles  are  yet  to  be  employed  in  the  work  of  conveying  it  to  them. 
Paul  even  says,  '  that  blindness  in  part  is  happened  to  Israel,  until  the  full- 
7iess  of  the  Grentiles  be  come  in."*  Rom.  11:  25.  We  do  not  conceive  that  the 
'  fullness  of  the  Gentiles,'  here  spoken  of,  embraces  the  whole  of  the  field 
which  we  refer  to  when  we  speak  of  '  the  conversion  of  the  w^orld ;'  for  we 
admit  the  limiting  force  of  those  prophecies  which  declare  that  'darkness  shall 
cover  the  earth'  when  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  rise  upon  Zion,  and  of  oth- 
ers which  assign  the  work  of  the  final  conversion  of  the  heathen  especially  to 
the  Jews.  But  we  do  understand  Paul  as  teaching,  that  the  most  important 
part  of  the  Gentile  church  is  to  be  gathered  into  Christ,  before  the  conversion 
of  the  Jewish  nation. 

This  agrees  with  the  anticipations  which  naturally  result  from  a  survey  of 
the  actual  state  of  the  nations  at  this  time.  The  gospel,  (by  which  we  mean 
not  the  system  of  legality  which  usually  bears  that  name,  but  the  primitive 
gospel  of  salvation  from  sin  by  the  resurrection  of  Christ,)  requires  for  its 
success,  a  degree  of  preparation  on  the  part  of  those  to  whom  it  comes.  God 
did  not  bring  his  Son  into  the  world  till  he  had  trained  a  nation,  by  a  long 
course  of  moral  discipline,  to  receive  him.  And  as  soon  as  the  small  stock 
of  material,  which  the  legal  education  of  the  Jews  and  the  civilization  of  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  had  made  ready,  was  used  up,  the  work  of  the  gospel 
ceased,  and  a  second  dispensation  of  law  took  its  place.  The  first  resurrec- 
tion, at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  was  the  closing  scene  of  the  first  dispen- 
sation of  the  gospel.  As  we  approach  the  second  resurrection' — the  closing 
scene  of  the  second  dispensation  of  the  gospel, — we  may  anticipate  the  order 
in  which  the  nations  will  be  brought  into  -Christ,  by  observing  their  compara- 
tive advancement  in  legal  morality  and  civilization — the  prerequisites  of  the 
final  work  of  grace.  That  part  of  the  world  which  presents  to  the  fire  of  the 
gospel  the  most  combustible  material  will  be  kindled  first ;  and  the  flame  will 
pass  from  that  to  other  parts,  in  the  order  of  their  susceptibihty.  Now  it  is 
evident  to  us,  that  as  the  Jews  were  in  the  highest  state  of  preparation  for  the 
gospel  at  the  time  of  its  first  dispensation,  so  di portion  of  the  Gentiles  are  now 
in  the  most  advanced  condition  of  susceptibility.  The  United  States,  Eng- 
land, Germany,  and  probably  some  other  of  the  European  nations,  are  clearly 
in  advance  of  the  Jews  in  morality  and  civiHzation  ;- — and  even  if  this  were 
doubtful,  the  single  circumstance  that  these  nations  receive  the  whole  of  the 
Bible,  while  the  Jews  reject  the  New  Testament,  would  be  a  sufficient  index 
of  the  superior  preparation  of  the  former  for  the  second  manifestation  of  the 
primitive  gospel.  The  Jews  probably  stand  next  to  these  leading  Gentile 
nations,  because  they  acknowledge  a  large  portion  of  the  oracles  of  God.  The 
Mohammedans  occupy  the  intermediate  position  between  them  and  Paganism, 
as  they  believe  in  one  God,  and  receive  more  or  less  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Last  on  the  scale  of  susceptibility,  stands  the  whole  of  the  heathen  world. 


BIRTHRIGHT  OF  ISRAEL.  415 

« 

^Ihe  conclusion  from  this  survey  is,  that  the  best  portion  of  Gentile  Christen- 
dom will  receive  the  gospel  first ;  that  the  Jews  will  then  be  brought  in, — 
and  finally,  that  they  will  gather  the  great  harvest  of  the  Mohammedan  and 
heathen  world. 

This  view  assigns  a  sufficient  precedence  to  the  Jews  ;  for  Mohammedan- 
ism and  Paganism  embrace  at  this  day  far  the  largest  portion  of  the  human 
race  ;  and  if  the  sun  of  righteousness  shall  rise  upon  the  nations  in  the  order 
we  have  indicated,  it  will  be  true  in  a  general  sense  that '  darkness  shall 
cover  the  earth,  and  thick  darkness  the  people,'  when  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
shall  reach  the  chosen  nation.  And  at  the  same  time  it  will  be  true  that  the 
JcAvs  obtain  the  second  ministration  of  mercy  through  the  Gentiles,  as  the 
Gentiles  obtained  the  first  through  the  Jews  :  and  that  the  substantial  part 
of  the  Gentile  church  will  be  brought  in,  before  the  second  ingathering  of 
Israel.     Thus  the  predictions  of  Isaiah  and  Paul  will  be  reconciled. 

The  church  gathered  at  the  first  resurrection,  was  twofold  in  its  constitu- 
tion. Its  first  and  strongest  department  was  a  body  of  Jews,  viz.  Christ,  the 
apostles  and  the  churches  of  Judea,  together  with  the  Old  Testament  saints. 
Its  second  department  consisted  of  Gentiles,  taken  principally  from  the  terri- 
tories of  Greek  and  Roman  civilization.  This  order  of  formation  leaves  the 
Gentile  end  of  that  church  (so  to  speak)  now  nearest  to  the  world.  If  the 
process  of  accretion  is  to  begin  again  where  it  ended,  and  if  the  attraction 
between  heaven  and  earth  is  to  be  favored  by  bringing  like  to  meet  hke,  we 
should  naturally  anticipate  that  the  beginning  of  the  church  of  the  second 
resurrection  would  be  a  Gentile  body.  Accordingly  a  portion  of  the  Gentiles, 
as  we  have  seen,  are  best  prepared  to  be  the  point  of  contact  for  the  gospel. 

When  a  firm  union  shall  have  been  estabHshed  between  the  invisible  and 
the  visible  church  by  joining  the  Gentile  end  of  the  former  to  the  Gentile  be- 
ginning of  the  latter,  the  extension  of  the  gospel  from  Christendom  to  the 
Jews,  and  from  the  Jews  to  the  Mohammedan  and  Pagan  world,  will  natu- 
rally follow ;  as  it  is  evident  from  observation  as  well  as  from  prophecy  that 
God  has  now  brought  or  is  fast  bringing  the  world,  as  a  whole,  to  a  state  suf- 
ficiently combustible  for  the  final  conflagration  ;  and  that  the  gospel  fire  when 
once  kindled  the  second  time,  will  not  go  out  for  want  of  prepared  fuel,  as  at 
the  first,  but  will  embrace  the  globe,  and  terminate  in  the  second  and  univer- 
sal resurrection. 

The  completed  church,  then,  will  consist  of  five  distinct  departments,  viz  : 
1,  the  Jewish  part  of  the  primitive  church  ;  2,  the  Gentile  part  of  the  primi- 
tive church ;  3,  the  Gentiles  now  farthest  advanced  in  preparation  for  the 
gospel,  1.  e.  the  best  part  of  Christendom  ;  4,  the  mass  of  the  Jewish  nation  ; 
5,  the  mass  of  Mohammedans  and  Pagans,  i.  e.  the  greater  part  of  the  exist- 
ing world.  The  reader  may  facilitate  his  conception  of  this  complex  church, 
by  representing  it  to  himself  under  the  figure  of  a  tree,  with  its  roots  radia- 
ting downward  and  its  branches  upward.  Let  a  line  be  drawn  across  the 
trunk  a  little  above  the  roots.  The  space  below  this  line  may  represent  the 
Jewish  portion  of  the  primitive  church.  A  second  line  a  short  distance  above 
the  first,  may  indicate  the  boundary  of  the  Gentile  portion  of  the  primitive 
church.     A  third  line  may  be  drawn,  higher  still,  to  mark  the  second  Gentile 


416  THE  SABBATH. 

department,  now  to  be  added.  Just  below  the  radiation  of  the  branches,  a 
fourth  hne  may  cut  oif  a  space  to  represent  the  second  Jewish  department ; 
and  then  the  whole  top  of  the  tree  may  stand  for  the  Mohammedan  and  Pa- 
gan world.  Thus  the  two  Gentile  departments  will  occupy  the  middle  part 
of  the  trunk,  and  the  two  Jewish  departments  its  extremities  ;  a  Jewish  root 
takes  hold  on  God,  and  a  Jewish  portion  of  the  trunk  takes  hold  on  the  mass 
of  nations. 


^59.    THE  SABBATH. 

The  true  practical  maxim  to  be  observed  by  believers,  w^hen  their  views 
differ  in  relation  to  the  obligation  of  the  fourth  commandment,  is  the  injunc- 
tion of  Paul,  '  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind.'  If  '  one 
man  esteems  one  day  above  another,  and  another  man  esteems  every  day 
alike,'  let  neither  judge  the  other,  and  let  neither  suffer  himself  to  be  judged. 
(See  Rom.  14:  5,  6,  &  Col.  2:  6.)  We  are  willing  to  abide  by  this  princi- 
ple, and  live  in  peace  with  those  who  observe  the  sabbath,  giving  them  no 
just  cause  of  offense  either  by  word  or  deed.  But  the  peace  must  be  recip- 
rocal. They  must  not  judge  us,  and  especially  they  must  not  accuse  us,  as 
many  legalists  have  done,  of  '  trampling  on  the  known  commands  of  God.' 
When  they  do  this,  we  find  ourselves  obhged  to  take  the  position  prescribed 
by  Luther  y — '  Keep  the  sabbath  holy'  (says  he)  '  for  its  use  sake,  both  to 
body  and  soul !  But  if  any  where  the  day  is  made  holy  for  the  mere  day's 
sake^f  any  where  any  one  sets  up  its  observance  on  the  Jewish  foundation^ 
then  I  order  you  to  work  on  it,  to  ride  on  it;  to  dance  on  it,  to  feast  on  it,  to 
do  any  thing  that  shall  reprove  this  encroachment  on  the  Christian  spirit  of 
liberty.'  (See  Coleridge's  Table  Talk.)  When  the  adherents  of  the  sab- 
bath, not  content  with  a  full  persuasion  of  their  own  minds,  take  upon  them 
to  dictate  and  accuse,  they  must  not  complain  if  we  give  our  own  reasons  for 
non-observance,  instead  of  lying  quiet  under  their  refutation  of  the  reasons 
which  they  choose  to  put  into  our  mouths.  On  this  ground,  we  shall  take 
the  liberty  to  go  into  an  investigation  of  the  point,  whether  the  sabbath  is 
really  of  universal  obligation. 

The  New  Testament  no  where  enjoins  the  observance  of  the  sabbath.  Its 
spirit,  as  well  as  its  specific  instructions,  so  far  as  they  touch  the  subject,  are 
decidedly  adverse  to  such  observances.  The  only  strong  hold,  therefore,  of 
Sabbatarians,  is  the  Old  Testament ;  and  especially  the  decalogue.  Here  they 
take  their  stand. 

"  The  ten  commandments,  (say  they,)  and  the  command  to  keep  the  sab- 
bath among  the  rest,  are  laws  of  universal  and  perpetual  obligation." 

"  But  (we  reply)  the  fourth  commandment  directs  us  to  keep  Saturday/. 
Bo  you  keep  that  day  ?" 

"  No :  but  we  keep  one  day  in  seven.    The  spirit  of  the  commandment 


THE   SABBATH.  417 

(wKich  is  all  that  Is  essential)  requires  us  to  set  apart  one  seventh  part  of 
time;  and  we  do  this  in  keeping  Sunday  as  well  as  we  should  if  we  kept  Sat- 
urday.'* 

"  Very  well ;  you  admit  then  that  the  letter  of  the  commandment  is  not 
now  binding,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  it  only  requires  us  to  keep  one  seventh 
part  of  time.  It  follows  of  course,  that  Sunday  is  not  specially  sacred,  and 
that  a  man  may  fulfil  the  law  as  well  by  keeping  Wednesday,,  or  any  other 
day  of  the  week  that  may  suit  his  convenience,  as  by  the  usual  observance. 
And  further,  it  follows  that  if  a  man  chooses  to  set  apart  from  worldly  busi- 
ness one  seventh  part  of  every  day  instead  of  one  day  in  seven,  he  may  obey 
the  spirit  of  the  command  in  that  way,  as  truly  as  you  do  in  in  observing  the 
first,  instead  of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week.  If  you  take  the  liberty  to  de- 
part from  the  letter  at  all,  you  are  obliged  to  acknowledge  that  the  law,  con- 
sidered as  a  specific  enactment,  relating  to  external  acts,  is  abrogated ;  and 
as  the  spirit  of  its  demands,  which  only  is  in  force,  may  be  satisfied  in  sev- 
eral different  ways  besides  your  own,  you  obviously  exceed  your  warrant,  in 
dictating  to  others  what  day  they  shall  keep,  or  in  forbidding  them  to  '  esteem 
every  day  alike,'  provided  they  sanctify  a  seventh  part  of  time." 

The  spirit  of  the  fourth  commandment,  abstracted  from  all  specific  modes, 
may  be  expressed  thus  :  '  Thou  shalt  abstain  from  bodily  labor  so  far  as  physi- 
cal and  spiritual  health  requires.'  This  is  a  rule  of  universal  and 
perpetual  obligation.  This  is,  and  forever  will  be,  the  rule  of  heaven. 
Angels  and  saints  made  perfect,  observe  it.  We  constantly  honor  this  rule 
both  by  precept  and  example,  as  one  of  pre-eminent  importance  ;  and  we  are 
in  favor  of  extending,  rather  than  curtailing  its  present  practical  application. 
Instead  of  diminishing  the  amount  of  time  usually  set  apart  for  mental  and 
religious  cultivation,  we  would  greatly  increase  it.  We  believe  that  not  merely 
one  day  in  seven,  but  as  much  at  least  as  one  halp  of  eveey  day,  ought 
to  be  devoted,  by  those  who  have  a  soul,  as  well  as  a  body,  to  intellectual 
and  spiritual  pursuits.  We  believe  that  a  jubilee  is  coming,  in  which  this 
Order  of  things  will  be  found  feasible,  and  will  be  adopted.  We  believe  that 
without  it,  the  race  of  man  will  never  emerge  from  animalism.  But  at  the 
same  time  we  believe  that  the  particular  embodiment  of  the  abstract  rule 
above  stated,  in  the  observance  of  a  particular  day  of  the  week,  which  was 
enjoined  on  the  Jews,  is  at  this  day  altogether  adverse  to  the  advance  of  man 
into  new  and  true  arrangements,  and  that  the  divine  obligation  of  it  passed 
away  with  the  Jewish  dispensation. 

We  have  seen  that  the  transfer  of  the  sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  necessarily  implies,  unless  that  transfer  was  an  unwarranted 
act  of  the  Christian  church,  that  the  letter  of  the  fourth  commandment  is  ab- 
rogated ;  and  if  the  letter  is  abrogated,  the  commandment  itself,  which  con- 
sists of  letters,  is  abrogated.  Yet  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  Sabbatarians 
should  maintain  that  it  is  not  abrogated.  The  whole  strength  of  their  cause 
lies  in  the  assumption  that  the  fourth  commandment  is  a  part  of  that  eternal 
'  moral  law'  which  did  not  share  in  the  wreck  of  the  Jewish  dispensation.  It 
is  manifestly  true  that  God  attached  a  special  importance  to  the  ten  command- 
ments. This  was  evinced  by  the  fact  that  he  separated  them  from  the  body 
62 


4lB  5:he  sabbath. 

of  the  Jewish  code,  and  engraved  them  twice  over  on  tables  of  stone.  On 
the  foundation  of  this  truth,  theologians  have  raised  a  belief — or  rather  a 
jpopular  impression  which  answers  all  the  purposes  of  a  beliefs — that  the  dec- 
alogue is  a  sacred,  unchangeable  formula  of  the  divine  will,  altogether  separate 
itom  and  independent  of  the  temporary  institutions  with  which  it  was  surroun- 
ded ^  and  equally  pertinent  and  essential  to  the  Christian  as  to  the  Jewish 
dispensation.  ^  This  impression  is  the  strong  fortress  of  the  sabbath  cause ; 
and,  notwithstanding  the  serious  breach  which  the  transfer  from  Saturday  to 
Sunday  has  made  in  its  walls,  it  is  still  coiisidered,  on  the  whole,  quite  de- 
fensible.    This  fortress  we  propose  now  to  reconnoitre. 

That  the  position  we  take  in  regard  to  the  abrogation  of  the  decalogue, 
inay  be  clearly  understood  at  the  outset,  we  will  introduce  it  by  an  illustration* 
Suppose  a  father,  for  the  better  management  of  his  small  children,  selects 
out  from  the  multitude  of  rules  and  instructions  which  he  daily  gives  them, 
ten  of  the  most  essential,  has  them  printed  in  large  letters,  and  framed,  and 
hangs  them  up  in  the  children's  room.  We  may  presume  this  family  deca- 
logue would  be  something  like  the  following : 

1.  You  must  say  your  prayers,  night  and  morning. 

2.  You  must  read  a  chapter  in  the  Bible  every  day. 

3.  You  must  not  say  naughty  words. 

4.  You  must  not  stay  out  in  the  street  after  nine  o'clock  at  night. 

5.  You  must  always  love,  obey,  and  cleave  to  your  father  and  mother* 

6.  You  must  not  strike  each  other. 

7*  You  must  not  play  in  the  dirt,  or  soil  and  tear  your  clothes* 

8.  You  must  not  take  v/hat  does  not  belong  to  you. 

9.  You  must  not  tell  wTong  stories. 

10*  You  must  go  regularly  to  school  at  the  appointed  hour* 
Every  one  sees  that  such  a  formula  as  this,  though  exceedingly  important 
for  children  eight  or  ten  years  old,  and  as  such  worthy  to  be  printed,  tramed^ 
and  hung  up  conspicuously  before  them,  cannot  claim  to  be,  as  to  the  letter 
of  it,  a  perpetual  expression  of  the  father's  will,  appropriate  to  the  adult  con- 
dition of  his  family.  Some  of  its  precepts  are  indeed  perpetually  obhgatory 
and  appropriate,  such  as  the  eighth  and  ninth.  The  old  as  well  as  the  young 
are  bound  not  to  steal  and  lie.  But  others,  though  obligatory  at  all  times, 
are  altogether  unnecessary,  and  of  course  inappropriate,  to  adults ;  such  as 
the  seventh.  Persons  of  mature  age  are  in  no  danger  of  playing  in  the  dirt* 
Others  are  neither  obligatory  or  appropriate,  except  in  the  case  of  small  chi^ 
dren,  such  as  the  fourth  and  tenth.  Adults  are  not  bound  to  be  at  home  at 
a  particular  hour  in  the  evening,  or  to  go  to  school.  Others  still,  though 
imperatively  binding  at  a  certain  age,  are  countermanded  by  precepts  adapted 
to  subsequent  life ;  such  as  the  fifth.  CJdldren  should  cleave  to  their  pa- 
tents, but '  a  man  shall  leave  father  and  mother  and  cleave  unto  his  wife.' 
The  spirit  of  the  whole  may  be  expressed  in  the  injunction — '  Behave  dutifully 
and  wisely  toward  God  and  man,  and  with  reference  to  body  and  soul.'  This 
l"ule  is  appropriate  to  all  ages,  and  equally  obligatory  on  all.  But  the  par- 
ticular form  in  which  this  rule  is  embodied  in  the  above  decalogue,  is  appro- 
priate and  obligatory  only  during  childhood. 


Y 


THE   SABBATH.  419 

Now  we  believe  it  can  be  shown  that  the  Jewish  decalogue  is  a  formula  of 
the  divine  will,  constructed  on  principles  similar  to  those  which  have  been 
exhibited  in  the  foregoing  illustration  ;  that  it  was  framed  with  special  refers 
ence  to  the  condition  of  the  Jews,  at  the  time  it  was  given  ;  that  in  several 
particulars  it  is  inappropriate  to  a  more  advanced  condition,  such  as  that  of 
Christian  believers ;  and  that,  while  its  spirit  remains  in  force,  its  authority 
as  a  formal  enactment  rested  on  the  same  basis  with  the  rest  of  the  Jewish 
code,  and  was  abohshed  by  the  advent  of  Christianity.  That  this  is  a  correct 
view  of  the  decalogue,  appears  from  the  following  considerations  : 

1,  Two  of  the  ten  commandments,  viz.,  the  first  and  second,  which  forbid 
literal  idolatry,  were  obviously  enacted  with  special  reference  to  the  prevailing 
vice  of  the  Jews,  and  of  the  nations  around  them,  at  the  time  the  law  was 
given.  The  strange  fatuity  with  which  the  chosen  people  plunged  again  and 
again  into  that  vice  till  fifter  the  Babylonish  captivity,  shows  how  important 
those  commandments  were  at  that  time.  God  wisely  placed  them  in  front 
of  the  decalogue.  But,  at  the  present  time,  so  far  as  the  Jews  and  a  great 
part  of  Christendom  are  concerned,  they  are  as  unnecessary  and  inappropri* 
ate  as  would  be  the  injunction  of  a  father  to  his  adult  children  not  to  play  in 
the  dirt.  If  God  were  to  give  a  written  law  now  to  the  Jews,  instead  of 
forbidding  image  worship  as  the  leading  vice,  he  would  undoubtedly  aim  his 
first  commandments  against  the  love  of  money.  Indeed,  the  reader  will  find 
by  examining  the  New  Testament,  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  never  pointed 
their  artillery  against  the  fallen  bulwarks  of  literal  idolatry,  but  against  cov- 
etousness,  which  had  taken  its  place.  The  sermon  on  the  mount  never  alludes 
to  image  worship;  but  it  bears  down  on  mammonism,  in  a  way  that  indicates 
Christ's  view  of  the  pre-eminence  of  that  vice.  (See  Matt.  6:  19- — 34  \ 
also  Eph.  5:  5,  and  Col.  3:  5.)  / 

2.  The  fifth  commandment—that  which  requires  reverence  toward  parents 
— -though  it  justly  occupies  a  high  place  in  the  morality  appropriate  to  a 
worldly  state,  and  was  one  of  the  most  essential  elements  of  that  preparatory 
civilization  which  God  sought  to  develope  in  the  Jewish  nation,  is  nevertheless 
essentially  modified,  and  even  in  a  certain  sense  countermanded  by  the  pre^ 
cepts  of  the  gospel.  In  the  place  of  that  commandment,  the  words  of  Christ 
are,  '  Except  a  man  hate  and  forsake  father  and  mother  .  ,  .  he  cannot  be 
my  disciple  ;'  '  Call  no  man  father  on  earth.'  In  accordance  with  these  pre^-  : 
cepts,  he  asserted  his  own  independence  of  his  earthly  parents,  when  he  was  "^ 
twelve  years  old ;  (Luke  2:  42- — 50  ;)  he  publicly  refused  to  recognize  ag 
his  mother  and  brethren  any  but  the  children  of  God  ;  (Matt.  12:  47 — 50;) 
and  he  constantly  addressed  Mary  by  the  title,  *  Woman^ — and  not  as  his 
mother.  John  2:  4.  19:  26.  The  principle  of  the  case  is  plain.  The  fifth 
commandment  directs  men  how  to  behave  as  children  of  the  flesh,  and  would 
be  of  universal  and  perpetual  obligation  if  men  were  never  called  to  a  spirit- 
ual state.  But  Christ  came  to  introduce  a  second  birth,  and  transfer  men 
from  a  carnal  to  a  spiritual  state  and  parentage.  For  this  purpose  it  was 
absolutely  necessary  that  he  should  countermand  the  letter  of  the  fifth  com* 
mandment.     It  is  no  objection  to  this  view,  that  Paul  exhorted  the  children 

of  believers  to  obey  their  parents.  Eph.  6:  1 — 3.    Col,  3:  20,      He  wieeJy 


420  THE   SABBATH. 

combined  tlie  morality  of  the  law  with  that  of  the  gospel,  because  his  instruc- 
tions on  this  point  were  addressed  to  those  who,  it  might  be  presumed,  were 
too  young  to  be  treated  as  subjects  of  the  spiritual  dispensation.  The  promise 
of  reward,  attached  to  the  fifth  commandment,  is  of  a  temporal  nature,  and 
indicates  the  temporal  nature  of  the  precept.  'Honor  thy  father  and  thy  moth- 
er, [not  that  you  may  secure  the  rewards  of  eternity,  but]  tliat  thy  days  may 
he  long  in  the  land  which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee.'  To  those  who  seek 
the  prize  of  the  second  birth,  the  precept  is,  '  Call  no  man  father  on  earth.' 

3.  We  have  the  explicit  testimony  of  Jesus  himself  in  respect  to  two  of  the 
ten  commandments,  that  the  letter  of  them  is  not  adapted  to  the  Christian 
dispensation.  In  immediate  connection  with  the  saying — '  Think  not  that  I 
am  come  to  destroy  the  law  and  the  prophets' — which  is  so  often  appealed  to 
by  legalists,  Christ  actually  repealed  the  formula  of  the  sixth  and  seventh 
commandments,  and  substituted  other  words  in  their  places.  '  Ye  have  heard 
that  it  was  said  by  them  of  old  time,  Thou  shalt  not  kill ;  and  whosoever  shall 
kill  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment.  But  I  say  to  you.  That  whosoever 
is  angry  with  his  brother  without  a  cause,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment ; 
and  whosoever  shall  say  to  his  brother,  Raca,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  coun- 
cil :  but  whosoever  shall  say,  Thou  fool,  shall  be  in  danger  of  hell-fire.'  Matt. 
5:  21,  22.  In  the  same  manner  he  proceeds  shortly  after  to  aboHsh  the  form 
and  re-embody  the  spirit  of  the  commandment,  '  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adul- 
tery.' Matt.  5:  27,  28.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  was  an  actual  repeal 
of  the  old  form  in  these  cases  ;  for  Christ  uses  the  same  languf'ge  in  both,  as 
that  by  which  he  immediately  afterward  repeals  the  rule,  '  An  eye  for  an 
eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth.'  Matt.  5:  38,  39.  When  he  says  in  relation  to 
this  bloody  law, —  'Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  &c.,  but  I  say  to 
you,'  &c., — every  one  understands  that  he  intends  by  this  form  of  speech  to 
abohsh  the  old  precept,  and  give  a  new  one.  It  is  equally  clear  that  by  the 
same  form  of  speech  he  repealed  the  sixth  and  seventh  commandments.  By 
the  two  examples  which  he  has  thus  furnished  us,  we  may  understand  what 
he  means  when  he  says — '  I  am  not  come  to  destroy  [the  law,]  but  to  fulfil.' 
He  certainly  does  not  mean  that  he  has  not  come  to  destroy  the  old  form  of 
the  ten  commandments,  for  this  is  what  he  immediately  proceeds  to  do.  He 
evidently  does  mean  that  he  has  not  come  to  destroy  the  spirit  of  the  law, 
but  to  perfect  its  development,  by  embodying  it  in  a  new  and  perfect  form. 
The  immense  enlargement  of  scope  which  he  gives  to  the  spirit  of  the  sixth 
and  seventh  commandments,  leads  to  the  presumption  that  if  he  had  expressly 
revised  the  fourth,  he  would  have  re-constructed  it  thus :  '  Ye  have  heard 
that  it  was  said  by  them  of  old  time,  Remember  the  seventh  day  to  keep  it 
holy.  But  I  say  to  you,  Keep  holy  seven  days  in  the  week,  and  twenty-four 
hours  in  the  day.' 

4.  Besides  the  changes  which,  we  have  seen,  are  required  in  the  precep- 
tive forms  of  some  at  least  of  the  ten  commandments,  it  can  be  shown  that 
the  Christian  dispensation  makes  a  still  greater  change  in  respect  to  the  legal 
nature  of  the  whole  of  them.  Christianity  is  a  dispensation,  not  of  law,  but 
of  grace  and  truth.  Retaining  and  greatly  enlarging  the  intrinsic  truths  of 
the  Mosaic  law,  it  proposes  to  enforce  obedience  to  those  truths,  by  spiritual 


THE    SABBATH.  421 

influences,  instead  of  legal  sanctions.  In  this  sense,  if  in  no  other,  it  may 
safely  be  said  that  the  ten  commandments  are  abolished,  so  far  as  Christian 
believers  are  concerned.  Five  of  the  most  important  chapters  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Romans,  (which  is  an  epitome  of  Paul's  theology,)  are  devoted  to  an 
elaborate  proof  that  the  law,  as  a  means  of  moral  influence,  prevents  instead 
of  promoting,  both  justification  and  sanctification  ;  and  that  whoever  is  in  the 
way  of  salvation  is  not  under  the  law.  The  apostle  leaves  no  room  to  doubt 
that  he  refers  in  this  demonstration,  especially  to  the  ten  commandments, 
since  he  cites  the  tenth  commandment— 'Thou  shalt  not  covet' — as  the  very  law 
which,  in  his  own  experience,  he  found  to  be  a  savor  of  death  instead  of  life. 
Kom.  7:  7.  In  perfect  accordance  with  this  fundamental  principle,  he  calls 
the  law  '  written  and  engraven  in  stones,'  (which  certainly  is  none  other  than 
the  ten  commandments,)  '  the  ministration  of  death ^^  Hhe  ministration  of 
condemnation^''  '  the  letter  that  Jdlleth/  and  announces  in  plain  terms  that 
this  law  is  'done  away^^ — is  'abolished''  by  the  new  covenant.  2Cor.  8:  6 — 13. 

What  shall  we  say  now  of  the  time-honored  dogma  that  the  ten  command- 
ments are  unrepealable,  eternal  expressions  of  the  divine  will  ?  Verily  that 
they  who  teach  such  things,  'know  not  what  they  say,  nor  whereof  they  afiirm.' 
It  is  as  clear  as  the  sunbeams  of  God's  truth  can  make  it,  that  the  letter  of 
the  decalogue  was  part  and  parcel  of  the  temporary  Mosaic  law^ :  that  it  was 
constructed  with  special  reference  to  the  childhood  of  the  Jewish  nation ; 
that  it  was  engraved  on  stones,  (as  parents  sometimes  print  and  frame  special 
rules  of  conduct  for  their  children,)  to  signify,  not  its  perpetual  obligation, 
but  il:s  specjal  importance  to  that  people  ;  that  parts  of  it  were  expressly  re- 
pealed by  Jesus  Christ;  and  that  Paul  pronounced  the  whole  of  it  abolished 
by  the  dispensation  of  the  spirit. 

What  then  becomes  of  the  argument  for  the  sabbath,  founded  on  the  as- 
sumed immutability  of  the  decalogue,  w^hich  is  the  strong  bulwark,  the  last 
refuge  of  Sabbatarians  ?  Verily  '  it  is  ready  to  vanish  away.'  The  com- 
mandment to  observe  the  seventh  day,  has  less  intrinsic  claim  than  any  other 
of  the  ten,  to  be  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  eternal '  moral  law.'  The  author- 
ity of  such  precepts  as — '  Thou  shalt  not  steal,' — '  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false 
witness,'  &c.,  may  be  supposed  to  extend  even  to  heaven.  But  nobody  im- 
agines that  the  angels  and  saints  made  perfect,  observe  one  day  in  the  week 
as  a  special  holy  day.  When  Christ  repeated  to  the  young  man  the  essential 
parts  of  the  decalogue,  he  did  not  mention  the  sabbath  precept.  Matt.  19: 
18.  Moreover  in  the  second  edition  of  the  decalogue,  pubhshed  in  Deuter- 
onomy 5:  7 — 21,  the  fourth  commandment  has  a  special  appendage,  which 
plainly  proves  it  to  be  merely  a  Jewish  institution.  After  reciting  the  pre- 
cept as  first  delivered,  the  record  proceeds  thus — '  Remember  that  thou  wast 
a  servant  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  that  the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  out 
thence,  through  a  mighty  hand,  and  by  a  stretched-out  arm :  therefore  the  - 
Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee  to  keep  the  sabbath  day.''  Deut.  5:  15.  Thus 
the  commandment  itself  bears  decisive  marks  of  its  limited  and  national  char- 
acter. This,  added  to  the  fact  that  it  stands  in  a  decalogue  which  as  a  whole 
has  been  show^n  to  be  mutable  and  repealable,  makes  an  accumulation  of  evi- 
dence of  its  abrogation,  which  cannot  but  satisfy,  ere  long,  all  but  those  who  9^ 
are  selfishly  interested  in  maintaining  its  perpetual  authority. 


y- 


422  THE    SABBATH. 

But  we  have  a  still  surer  '  word  of  prophecy.'  To  set  the  matter  com- 
pletely at  rest,  we  are  fortunately  able  to  produce  an 

APOSTOLIC   DECISION   OF  THE   SABBATH   QUESTION. 

In  the  15th  chapter  of  Acts  we  are  informed  that  the  question  whether 
the  external  institutions  of  the  Jews  are  to  be  regarded  as  binding  on  the 
Gentiles,  was  distinctly  raised  in  the  primitive  church,  and  decided,  in  full 
council,  after  solemn  debate  by  the  apostles.  Their  decision  is  contained  in 
the  following  letter : 

"  The  apostles  and  elders,  and  brethren,  send  greeting  unto  the  brethren 
which  are  of  the  Gentiles  in  Antioch,  and  Syria,  and  CiUcia  :  Forasmuch  as 
we  have  heard  that  certain  which  went  out  from  us  have  troubled  you  with 
words,  subverting  your  souls,  saying,  Ye  must  be  circumcised,  and  keep  the 
Jaw  :  to  whom  we  gave  no  such  commandment :  it  seemed  good  unto  us,  being 
assembled  with  one  accord,  to  send  chosen  men  unto  you,  with  our  beloved 
Barnabas  and  Paul,  men  that  have  hazarded  their  lives  for  the  name  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  We  have  sent  therefore  Judas  and  Silas,  who  shall  also  tell  you 
the  same  things  by  mouth.  For  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us,  to 
lay  upon  you  no  greater  burthen  than  these  necessary  things  ;  that  ye  abstain 
from  meats  offered  to  idols,  and  from  blood,  and  from  things  strangled,  and  from 
fornication  :  from  which  if  ye  keep  yourselves,  ye  shall  do  well.  Fare  ye  well." 
Acts  15:  23—29. 

As  we  are  Gentiles,  we  may  fairly  consider  this  letter  as  addressed  to  us ; 
and  it  comes  to  us  with  the  authority,  not  only  of  the  apostles  and  eldef  s  at 
Jerusalem,  but  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  That  it  includes  in  its  scope*  the  sabbat- 
ical institution,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  was  addressed  to  persons  who 
had  not  been  educated  in  the  observance  of  the  sabbath,  and  to  whom  of 
course  the  express  exception  of  that  institution  (if  the  apostles  had  designed 
that  it  should  be  excepted  from  the  decree  of  abrogation)  would  have  been 
quite  as  necessary,  as  the  exceptions  which  they  actually  did  make  in  rela- 
tion to  eating  polluted  things,  and  fornication.  Gentile  believers,  to  whom 
the  sabbath  was  at  that  time  an  ordinance  as  new  and  arbitrary  as  that  of 
circumcision,  could  not  but  understand — and  the  apostles  of  course  designed 
they  should  understand — that  it  was  a  part  of  that  '  law'  from  which  the 
above  letter  declared  them  exempt.  As  Gentiles,  then,  we  are  formally 
discharged,  by  the  highest  authority,  human  and  divine,  from  the  obligation 
to  keep  the  sabbath  ;  and  we  may  well  throw  back  upon  modern  Sabbatarians 
the  charge  of  '  trampling  on  divine  commands.*  In  the  face  of  a  solemn 
manifesto  of  God  and  his  servants,  these  Judaizers  '  trouble  men  with  words, 
suhverting  their  souls,  saying.  Ye  must  [sabbatize,]  and  keep  the  law :  to 
whom  [the  apostles  and  the  Holy  Ghost]  gave  no  such  commandment.' 


§60.    BAPTISM. 

Paul  speaks  of  the  *  doctrine  of  baptisms'  (Ileb.  6:  2)  as  among  the  ele- 
mentary instructions  of  the  gospel— a  '  first  principle,'  like  repentance,  faith, 
&c.,  which  even  babes  in  Christ  might  be  supposed  to  understand.  Surely 
then,  we  may  expect,  before  examination,  to  find  that  the  word  of  God  fur- 
nishes to  the  sincere  inquirer,  evidence  by  w^hich  he  may  easily  arrive  at  sat- 
isfactory and  certain  conclusions  concerning  a  subject  which  thus  stands  at 
the  entrance  of  the  Christian's  pathway.  We  propose  therefore,  in  this  arti- 
cle, to  step  aside  from  the  numberless  controversies  on  this  subject,  which 
have  long  rent  the  visible  church — controversies  which  obviously  prove,  that 
one  or  both  of  the  parties  engaged  in  them,  have  been  ignorant  of  the  fii^st 
principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ— and  examine  in  simplicity  for  ourselves, 
and  for  the  assistance  of  our  readers,  the  record  of  God.  We  shall  conduct 
this  examination,  by  quoting  the  most  important  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, relating  to  baptism,  and  adding  such  remarks  as  they  suggest. 

Matt.  3:  10, 11.  ^I  [John  the  Baptist]  indeed  baptize  you  with  water;  but 
he  that  cometh  after  me,  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy 
to  bear;  he  [Christ]  shall  baptize  you  with  the  ^oZ?/ (r/ios^  and  with  fire.' 
In  each  of  the  other  Evangelists,  this  declaration  of  John  is  recorded  ; 
(Markl:  8,  Luke  3:  16,  John  1:  26  ;)  and  Christ  himself  repeated  it  just 
before  his  ascension.  '  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  bap- 
tized with  the  JSol^  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence.'  Here  then,  we  have  in 
the  beginning  of  each  of  the  first  five  books  of  the  New  Testament,  an  expli- 
cit statement  of '  the  doctrine  of  baptisms  ;'  the  very  doctrine,  doubtless,  to 
which  Paul  alluded,  in  using  the  plural  of  the  word  baptism.  The  doctrine 
manifestly  is,  that  water  baptism  belonged  to  the  ministry  of  John,  and  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Crhost  to  that  of  Christ.  These  primary  statements  are 
BO  simple  and  clear,  that  we  cannot  wonder  that  Paul  regarded  '  the  doctrine 
of  baptisms,'  as  one  of  the  first  principles  of  the  instructions  of  the  gospel ; 
and  if  on  further  examination,  we  find  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  view  they 
present,  we  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  forming  our  judgment  on  the  subject. 
It  is  plain,  that  all  occasion  for  dispute  about  the  mode  of  water  baptis7n  is 
removed,  unless  indeed  we  consider  John  the  Baptist  our  spiritual  head,  in- 
stead of  Christ.  If,  in  professing  to  be  Christians,  we  rank  ourselves  among 
the  followers  of  Christ,  and  not  of  John,  we  must  regard  tvater  baptism  as  an 
ordinance  belonging  to  a  ptast  dispensation;  and  of  course  all  controversy  con- 
cerning it  as  ill-timed  foolishness.  We  are  subjects  of  the  dispensation  to 
which  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Crhost  belongs.  We  receive  the  substance,  of 
which  John's  baptism  was  the  shadow  ;  and  have  no  more  occasion  for  dis- 
pute about  water  baptism  than  about  circumcision,  or  any  other  ordinance  of 
Judaism. 

Matt.  28:  19.  *  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  tliem  in 
Hie  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Gfhost.^  The  in- 
tent of  this  direction  evidently  accords  with  the  doctrine  which  John  and 


i 


424  BAPTISM. 

Christ  had  before  explicitly  and  repeatedly  stated,  as  we  have  seen.  These 
words  of  Christ  commissioned  his  disciples  to  baptize  not  with  water,  for  that 
was  John's  baptism,  but  '  in  the  name  [i.  e.  with  the  power]  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,'  which  alone  was  the  baptism  of  Christ.  We  must 
suppose  that  Christ  perfectly  understood  the  doctrine  of  baptisms,  the  diifer- 
ence  between  John's  baptism  and  his  own,  and  used  this  language  with  that 
distinction  in  his  mind.  If  he  had  intended  to  perpetuate  John's  baptism, 
surely  he  would  have  explicitly  commissioned  his  disciples  to  baptize  Avith 
water.  This  he  did  not  do,  but  on  the  contrary  explicitly  commissioned  them 
to  baptize  in  his  own  name,  of  course  with  Ms  baptism,  and  '  in  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  The  fact  that  his  disciples  understood  him  as  directing 
them  to  continue  the  ministration  of  baptism  by  water,  which  they  had  before 
practised,  (John  4:  2,)  by  no  means  militates  with  this  view.  They  did  in- 
deed understand  him  in  this  inferior  sense,  and  proceeded  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, and  afterwards,  to  administer  water  baptism.  But  his  meaning  in  this 
case,  as  in  many  others,  must  not  be  determined  by  their  understanding,  but 
by  his  own  declarations  concerning  the  same  subject  in  other  places.  While 
he  was  with  them  in  the  flesh,  they  received  most  of  his  instructions  in  a  car- 
nal, inferior  sense.  They  knew  him  not  as  Lord  of  that  spiritual  kingdom, 
which  *  Cometh  not  with  observation  ;'  they  read  his  character  and  instruc- 
tions, in  the  '  letter,'  not  in  the  '  spirit.'     In  allusion  to  this  he  said  to  them, 

*  These  things  have  I  spoken  to  you,  being  yet  present  with  you ;  but  the 
Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name, 
he  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bri7ig  all  things  to  your  reTrmmbrance, 
whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you.^  John  14:  25,26.  With  this  anticipation, 
he  spoke  to  them.  His  personal  mstructions  are  therefore  to  be  construed, 
not  according  to  their  immediate  understanding  of  them ;  but  with  reference 
to  that  subsequent  teaching  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  which  these  instructions 
were  but  a  text-book.  A  notable  illustration  of  these  remarks  occurs  in  the 
very  verse  which  has  occasioned  them,  '  Go  ye  and  teach  all  nations.^  In 
these  words,  Christ  surely  designed  to  give  the  disciples  an  unlimited  com- 
mission, as  also  iif  Acts  1:  8  ;  yet  a  long  time  elapsed  before  they  knew  the 
extent  of  their  commission.  Nearly  ten  years  after  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
Peter  for  the  first  time  discovered,  by  the  intervention  of  a  miraculous  vis- 
ion, manifested  both  to  himself  and  Cornelius,  that  God  had  broken  down 
the  wall  of  partition  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  that  he  was  at  liberty  to 

*  teach  all  nations.'  We  need  not  wonder  then,  that  they  who  received  the 
unlimited  commission,  '  Go  ye  and  teach  all  nations,'  in  a  sense  which  re- 
stricted them  to  the  Jewish  people,  received  also  the  accompanying  direction, 
^Baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,' 
in  a  sense  which  led  them  for  a  season  to  continue  the  water  baptism  of  John. 
These  remarks  are  equally  applicable  to  the  parallel  passage  in  Mark  16:16, 

*  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved.'  The  obvious  meaning 
is,  '  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,'  not  with  the  water  baptism  of  John, 
but '  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  the 
baptism  of  Christ, '  shall  be  saved.' 


BAPTISM.  425 

John  4:  2.  *  Jesus  himself  baptized  not  [with  water,]  but  his  disciples.' 
The  fact  that  Jesus  did  not  baptize  with  water,  and  John's  special  notice  of 
it  in  this  passage,  accord  with,  and  confirm  the  view  we  have  presented. 
Whj  did  not  Jesus  baptize,  if  water  baptism  is  a  Christian  ordinance  ? — 
He  insisted  upon  being  baptized  himself,  with  w^ater,  at  the  commencement 
of  his  ministry,  '  that  lie  might  fulfil  all  righteousness,'^  Being  made  under 
the  law,  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  be  subject  to  all  the  ordinances  of 
the  law,  and  especially  to  that  ordinance  which  most  immediately  foretokened 
bis  own  work.  But  surely  he  failed  to  fulfil  one  very  important  part  of  right- 
eousness, in  neglecting  to  give  his  followers  an  example  of  the  ministration 
of  water  baptism,  if  he  designed  that  they  should  perpetuate  it  as  a  Christian 
ordinance.  If  a  Christian  minister  should  never  baptize  with  water,  he  might 
well  defend  his  conduct  by  appealing  to  the  example  of  his  Master.  Our 
next  quotation  will  show,  that  Jesus  Christ  did  not  send  his  apostles  to  bap- 
tize with  water;  and  therefore  his  example  was  consistent  with  his  instructions. 

1  Cor.  1:  14 — 17.  'I  thank  Crod  that  Ihaptized  none  of  you  ^  but  Crispus 
and  Gains  ;  lest  any  should  say  that  I  baptized  in  my  own  name.  And  I 
baptized  also  the  household  of  Stephanas :  besides,  I  know  not  whether  I 
baptized  any  other.  For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize^  but  to  preach  the 
gospel.'  The  fact  that  Paul  baptized  any  with  water,  is  easily  explained  by 
his  own  words  in  the  same  epistle,  ICor.  9:  20,  &c. : — '  Unto  the  Jews  I  be- 
came as  a  Jew  ;  to  them  that  are  under  the  law,  as  under  the  law,  &c.  I 
am  made  all  things  to  all  men,  that  I  might  by  all  means  save  some.'  In 
accordance  with  this  principle  of  accommodation  which  he  adopted,  he  not 
only  administered  water  baptism,  but  circumcision  ;  (Acts  16:  3;)  and  we_ 
might  argue  as  plausibly  for  the  continuance  of  circumcision,  as  of  John's 
baptism,  from  the  example  of  Paul.  He  baptized  but  few  of  his  converts  at 
Corinth,  and  probably  as  few  elsewhere,  and  thanked  God  that  he  baptized 
no  more.  Evidently  it  was  a  matter  of  expediency,  not  of  obhgation  with  him; 
'  for'  says  he,  '  Christ  sent  me,  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel ;'  in 
other  words,  '  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize  with  water,  but  with  the  Holy 
Ghost ;'  for  '  the  gospel  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation.'  Paul  was  a 
minister  of  the  Spirit  of  the  hving  God.  2  Cor.  3:  3,  6.  It  is  plain  then, 
that  a  minister  of  the  gosjjel  has  not  only  the  example  of  Christ,  but  of  Paul, 
his  chief  apostle,  in  favor  of  dispensing  with  the  ministration  of  water  baptism, 
as  a  Christian  ordinance. 

Acts  2:  38.  '  Then  said  Peter  unto  them.  Repent,  and  be  baptized^QYe- 
Tj  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,'  &c.  We  quote  this  passge  as  a 
specimen  of  many  similar  passages  in  the  Acts  of  the  apostles,  exhibiting  the 
doctrine  and  practice  of  the  first  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ.  We  need  quote 
no  more,  for  we  concede  without  reluctance  all  that  can  be  asked  for  the  ar- 
gument in  favor  of  water  baptism,  derived  from  the  example  of  Peter  and  his 
associate  apostles.  Beyond  controversy,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  and  after- 
wards, they  baptized  with  water,  in  comphance  with  what  they  supposed  to 
be  the  last  direction  of  their  Master.  Yet  we  shall  be  permitted  by  all,  save 
the  worshippers  of  saints,  to  question,  for  reasons  already  stated,  whether 
the  apostles  in  this  early  stage  of  their  ministry,  rightly  understood  the  direc- 
63 


4^0  fiAPtlSM- 

tions  of  their  Master.  Their  doctrine  of  baptisms  was  manifestly  at  variance 
^ith  the  instructions  and  examples  of  Christ  and  Paul,  except  on  the  suppo^ 
sition  that  they  were  yet  partially,  at  least,  in  the  dispensation  of  John  the 
Baptist.  We  cannot  beheve,  in  view  of  the  truths  which  we  have  previously 
discussed,  that  as  mirmters  of  the  gospel  of  Christy  they  prescribed  and  prac-' 
tised  water  baptism.  As  ministers  of  the  doctrine  and  baptism  of  John,  their 
course  was  consistent  .with  the  instructions  of  their  Master.  Yet  their 
example  plainly  furnishes  no  argument  in  favor  of  water  baptism,  unless 
we  make  John  our  leader  instead  of  Christ.  Many  circumstances  combine 
to  induce  the  belief,  that  they  were  thus  in  the  first  stages  of  their  ministry, 
in  a  measure  the  disciples  of  John.  1.  Their  preaching  and  his  were  nearly 
identical.  '  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance^  saying  un* 
to  the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him  that  should  come  after  him, 
that  is,  on  Jesus  Christ.'  Acts  19:  4*  Such  also  was  the  preaching  of  the 
apostles,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  and  afterwards j^—'i^gj^mf  and  be  baptized,' 
&c.  ' Repent  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,  when  the 
times  of  refreshing  shall  come  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord ;  and  he  shall 
send  Jesus  Christ  U7ito  you^  kc.  Acts  3:  19,  20.  Faith  in  &p>rese7it  Savior, 
is  confessedly  the  foremost  doctrine  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  the  gospel  Avhich 
Paul  preached ;  whereas  the  apostles,  like  John,  preached  chiefly  repentance^ 
and  pointed  the  people  '  to  him  that  should  come  after.'  2.  As  John  in  his 
personal  ministry  was  for  a  season  cotemporary  with  Christ,  so  we  believe  the 
dispensation  of  which  John  was  the  head,  was  for  a  season  cotetoporary  with 
that  of  which  Christ  was  the  head.  The  doctrine  and  baptism  of  John  were 
for  a  season  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  blended  with  the  preaching  of  Christ 
and  the  baptism  of  the  Ploly  Ghost.  But  we  believe  also,  that  as  John  said 
with  reference  to  Christ,  '  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease,'  so  the 
doctrine  and  baptism  of  John,  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  gradually  gave 
place  to  the  doctrine  and  baptism  of  Christ.  God  seems  to  have  pursued 
the  same  order  in  this  case,  as  in  the  entire  transition  from  Judaism  to  Chris- 
tianity, and  in  every  other  change  of  dispensation  ;  introducing  the  new  dis- 
pensation, not  by  a  sudden  exchange,  but  by  a  gradual  process,  like  the  blend« 
ing  of  light  and  darkness  in  the  dawn  of  the  morning.  3.  We  are  expressly 
informed,  (Acts  18:  24,  25,)  that  long  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  a  man 
who  was  '  mighty  in  the  scriptures,'  '  fervent  in  spirit,'  and  '  instructed  in 
the  way  of  the  Lord^  was  yet  only  a  disciple  of  John.  ^A  certain  Jew, 
named  ApoUos,  born  at  Alexandria,  an  eloquent  man,  and  mighty  in  the 
scriptures,  came  to  Ephesus.  This  man  was  instructed  in  the  way  of  the 
Lord,  and  being  fervent  in  the  spirit,  he  spake  and  taught  diligently  the 
things  of  the  Lord,  knowing  only  the  haptism  of  John."  By  this  circum- 
stance we  may  discover,  that  the  influence  of  the  dispensation  of  John,  was 
for  a  season,  to  some  extent,  intermingled  with  that  of  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion. 4.  Paul  gives  us  to  understand,  (Gal.  1  k  2,)  that  Peter  and  his  as- 
sociate apostles,  were  for  a  long  time  after  the  commencement  of  their  minis- 
try,  judaizing  and  contracted  in  their  views  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  He  says, 
*Foui'teen  years  after,  [i.  e.  about  twenty  years  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,] 
1  went  up  again  to  Jerusalem  with  Barnabas,  and  took  Titus  with  me  also  5 


BAPTISM.  427 

and  I  went  up  by  revelation,  and  communicated  unto  tJtem,  [i.  e.  tlie  apos- 
tles and  their  followers,]  that  gospel  Avhich  I  preach  among  the  Gentiles,  &c. 
Of  those  that  seemed  to  be  somewhat,  whatever  they  were,  it  maketh  no  mat- 
ter to  me  ;  God  accepteth  no  man's  person  ;  for  they  who  seemed  to  be  some- 
what, in  conference  added  nothing  to  me,  hut  contrariivise^  &c.  He  after- 
wards plainly  shows  to  whom  he  alludes  in  these  expressions  ;'  '■James,  Ce- 
phas, [or  Peter,]  and  John^  were  they  who  'seemed  to  be  pillars.'  After- 
Wards  he  states  that  he  '  withstood  Peter  to  his  face,'  for  his  blameworthy 
judaizing.  We  recommend  to  such  as  are  disposed  to  worship  saints,  and 
make  apostolic  practices  immutable  laws,  a  careful  perusal  of  this  passage  in 
Paul's  writings.  It  will  be  found  that  Paul  scrupled  not  to  differ  in  doctrine 
and  practice  from  those  who  had  been  '  apostles  before  him.'  Vv^e  need  not 
wonder  that  he  spoke  so  lightly  as  we  have  seen,  of  that  water  baptism  which 
those  apostles  prescribed  and  administered  in  the  beginning  of  their  apostleship, 
6.  If  it  is  objected  in  answer  to  Avhat  has  been  said,  that  the  apostles  bapti- 
zed with  water  while  under  the  guidanee  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  yiQ  reply,  in  the 
first  place,  though  we  should  admit  that  the  Holy  Ghost  did  actually  direct 
them  to  baptize  with  water,  we  might  still  assert,  that  no  one  can  truly  follow 
their  example,  who  baptizes  ivithout  the  special  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
But  we  deny  that  there  is  any  evidence  that  the  Holy  Ghost  did  direct 
them  to  baptize  with  water.  We  cannot  ascribe  all  their  actions  and  views 
to  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  a  time  they  evidently  regarded  cir- 
cumcision as  a  Christian  ordinance.  Was  this  a  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 
They  regarded  the  Jewish  nation  as  alone  entitled  to  the  blessings  of  the  gos- 
pel. Were  they  taught  this  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Peter  so  conducted  that 
Paul  withstood  him  to  his  face,  '  because  he  was  to  be  blamed.'  Did  he  act 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  ^lanifestly  the  Jewish  practices 
and  views  which  the  apostles  had  received,  not  from  the  Holy  Ghost,  but 
from  their  previous  education,  must  account  for  many  things  in  their  conduct; 
and  what  portion  of  Judaism  would  be  more  likely  to  adhere  to  them  in  the 
beginning  of  their  apostleship,  than  the  baptism  of  John- — the  recent  intro- 
duction and  celebrity  of  which,  seemed  doubtless  to  characterize  it  as  a  per- 
manent ordinance  of  the  new  dispensation  ?  It  is  said  that  Philip  baptized 
the  eunuch  (Acts  8:38)  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  only 
evidence  in  favor  of  this  assertion,  is  the  fact  that  Philip  was  directed  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  preach  Christ  to  the  eunuch.  The  inference  from  this  is, 
that  he  subsequently  baptized  him  by  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Ob- 
serve, this  is  only  an  inference.  It  is  not  said  that  the  Holy  Ghost  dictated 
the  baptism.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  said  that  *  the  eunuch  said.  See,  here 
is  water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  '/'  The  suggestion  of  water 
baptism  came  from  the  eunuch,  and  not  from  the  Holy  Ghost.  When  a  pas- 
sage shall  be  found  in  the  record  of  God  directly  ascribing  the  ministration 
of  water  baptism  to  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  shall  be  ready  to 
admit  that  tliere  is  some  plausibility  in  the  argument  for  its  continuance  as  a 
Christian  ordinance  ;  but  while  feeble  inferences  alone,  are  the  foundation  of 
that  argument,  we  must  be  permitted  to  receive  the  instructions  and  examples 
of  Christ  and  Paul,  as  paramount  to  the  instructions  and  examples  of  thosa 


428  BAPTISM. 

apostles  who,  while  thej  ^  seemed  to  be  pillars,'  were  yet  manifestly,  to  a 
great  extent,  under  the  influence  of  Jewish  habits  and  doctrines. 

1  Peter  3:  20,  21.  'Eight  souls  were  saved  by  water,  [i.  e.  in  Noah's 
ark ;]  the  like  figure  whereunto,  even  baptism,  doth  also  now  save  us,  {not 
the  putting  aivay  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
towards  God,)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead.'  It  is  evi- 
dent from  this  passage,  that  Peter's  views  of  baptism  were  rectified  at  the 
time  he  wrote  his  epistles.  The  baptism  of  which  he  here  speaks,  is  express- 
ly declared  to  be,  not  that  which  washes  away  '  the  filth  of  the  flesh,'  i.  e. 
water  baptism ;  but  that  which  purifies  the  conscience,  i.  e.  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  By  giving  heed  to  this  explanation,  we  shall  have  no  diffi- 
culty in  discerning  the  connection  which  he  suggests,  between  baptism  and 
the  resurrection  of  Christ.  Water  baptism  can  scarcely  be  strained  by  any 
latitude  of  fancy,  into  a  type  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  John  the  Baptist, 
with  whom  it  originated,  evidently  designed  no  such  allusion.  He  administered 
it  according  to  the  character  uniformly  ascribed  to  it  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  in  the  traditions  of  the  Jews,  as  an  ordinance  oiinitiatioji — a  rite  by  which 
its  subjects  were  introduced  into  a  new  dispensation.  As  such,  it  was  prop- 
erly a  type  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  which  believers  are  intro- 
duced into  the  Christian  dispensation.  Water  baptism  stood  in  the  same 
relation  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  that  in  which  John  the  Baptist 
stood  to  Christ.  That  we  may  understand  how  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  connected  with  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  it  is  only  necessary  that 
we  bear  in  mind  that  believers  are  thereby  baptized  into  Christ,  become 
members  of  his  body,  and  of  course  pai^:takers  of  his  resurrection.  This  is 
plainly  the  meaning  of  Paul  in  the  following  passages  : — '  Know  ye  not  that 
so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  Avere  baptized  into  his 
death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  hy  baptism,  into  death,  that  like 
as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead,  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so, 
we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we  have  been  planted  togeth- 
er in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  he  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resur- 
rection.'' Rom.  6:  3 — 5.  •  Ye  are  complete  in  him,  &c.,  buried  with  him  in 
baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him,  through  the  faith  of  the  opera- 
tion of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead.'  Col.  2:  10 — 12.  Paul 
plainly  defines  the  baptism,  of  which  he  thus  speaks,  in  the  following  passages: 
^As  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  that 
one  body,  being  many,  are  one  body,  so  also  is  Christ.  For  by  one  Spi7it 
are  we  all  bap)tized  into  one  body.'  1  Cor.  12:  12,  13.  '  For  as  many  of  us 
as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  ha,YQpiit  on  Christ."*  Gal.  3:  27.  Believ- 
ers becoming  one  with  Christ  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  while  they 
remain  in  the  flesh,  have  fellowship  with  his  death  ;  inasmuch  as  his  incarna- 
tion was  in  the  largest  sense  his  death  ;  and  at  the  same  time  they  have  fel- 
lowship with  his  resurrection,  inasmuch  as  their  head,  whose  spirit  is  theirs, 
has  overcome  death.  '  He  was  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by 
the  Spirit.'  1  Pet.  3:  18.  The  connection  of  baptism  with  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  may  be  imperfectly  illustrated  by  the  following  case.  In  working 
subterranean  mines,  it  is  often  necessary  to  remove  water  that  flows  into  them, 


BAPTISM.  429 

by  means  of  an  engine  which  alternately  raises  and  lowers  large  buckets 
through  the  shaft  which  constitutes  the  entrance  of  the  mine.  Such  excava- 
tions are  also  oftentimes  liable  to  explosions,  by  reason  of  the  inflammable 
gases  which  infest  them.  Suppose  that  a  workman  in  such  a  mine,  is  in- 
formed by  the  appearance  of  his  lamp  that  an  explosion  is  at  hand.  At  the 
same  moment  the  water-bucket  is  just  about  to  ascend.  Rushing  from  a  fiery 
and  dreadful  death,  he  plunges  into  the  ascending  bucket,  and  is  safely 
raised  to  the  upper  world.  He  is  hajJttzed  into  a  resurrection.  The  primi- 
tive church  was  awaiting  the  explosion  of  the  fiery  vengeance  of  God,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  prince  of  this  world.  Christ  came  in  the  flesh,  '  descending 
into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth,  and  ascending  above  all  heavens.'  He 
thus  became  the  shaft  of  communication  betAveen  the  caverns  of  sin  and  the 
heavenly  world.  '•lamthetvay.^  John  14:  6.  His  resurrection  also  became 
the  power  by  which  believers  were  exalted  into  heavenly  places.  '  I  am  the 
resurrection.'^  John  11:  35.  His  descent  into  the  darkness  of  this  world,  was 
his  death.  Hence  beUevers,  plunging  into  his  blood,  were  baptized  into  his 
death  ;  and  having  fellowship  with  him  in  his  victory  over  death,  were  bap- 
tized into  his  resurrection ;  and  when  the  wrath  of  God  burst  upon  the  man 
of  sin,  were  found  safely  reposing  with  him  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father. 

Peter,  in  the  passage  which  has  suggested  these  remarks,  represents  the 
salvation  of  Noah  and  his  family  in  the  ark,  as  a  type  of  the  salvation  of 
the  primitive  church,  by  baptism  into  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  The  flood 
of  water  in  the  type,  is  a  storm  of  judgment-fire  in  the  antitype.  The  ark 
is  Christ.  The  entrance  of  the  ark  is  '  baptism  into  Christ.'  As  the  flood 
came  upon  the  ark,  and  it  rose  above  the  waters,  safely  bearing  its  inmates, 
till  the  dry  land  reappeared,  so  Christ  became  a  refuge  for  believers  in  the 
midst  of  the  fiery  vengeance  of  God,  and  by  the  power  of  his  resurrection, 
bearing  them  above  the  burning  billows  that  rolled  over  those  who,  in  the  day 
of  judgment,  were  not  found  in  him,  gave  them  a  resting  place  in  the  king- 
dom of  his  glory.  With  these  views,  we  perceive  that  Peter  very  properly 
represented  baptism  as  a  saving  ordinance.  'The  like  figure  whereunto,  even 
baptism,  doth  now  save  us.'  Without  baptism  into  Christ,  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
none  can  be  saved. 

Eph.  4:  4,  5.  '  There  is  one  body  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in 
one  hope  of  your  calling  :  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism.^  If  water  bap- 
tism was  in  Paul's  view  a  Christian  ordinance,  he  has  not  spoken  in  this  pas- 
sage according  to  the  form  of  sound  doctrine  :  for  he  says  in  1  Cor.  12:  13, 
'Bi/  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body  ;'  showing  that  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  regarded  by  him  as  07ie  baptism,  of  universal  neces- 
sity ;  and  if  water  baptism  was  in  his  view  equally  necessary,  he  should 
have  said, — '  one  Lord,  one  faith,  two  baptisms.'  Observe  further,  in  the 
two  passages  we  have  quoted,  he  was  manifestly  treating  of  the  same  subject, 
viz.,  the  unity  of  the  church.  In  one  he  speaks  expressly  of  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  pertaining  universally  to  the  church :  in  the 
other  he  declares  that  but  one  baptism  pertains  to  the  church.  By  thus 
comparing  the  two  passages,  we  cannot  avoid  the  inference  that  he  regarded 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  only  baptism  pertaining  to  the  cluux-h. 


430  BAPTISM. 

This  view  alone  accords  with  his  own  declaration  and  practice,  and  those  of 
Christ,  as  we  have  before  seen.  As  he  states  that  only  one  baptism  belongs 
to  Christianity,  in  determining  his  meaning,  we  have  only  to  choose  between 
John's  baptism  and  Christ's.  One  must  be  rejected.  We  know  which  Christ 
rejected :  '  Jesus  baptized  not'  [with  water.]  John  4:  2.  We  know  which 
Paul  himself  rejected  :  '  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize'  [with  water.]  1  Cor. 
1:  17.  The  conclusion  is  unavoidable,  that  Paul's  '  doctrine  of  baptisms,'  a 
doctrine  which  he  regarded  as  one  of  the  elementary  instructions  of  the  gos- 
pel, rejected  water  baptism,  and  retained  only  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  a  necessary  appurtenance  to  Christianity. 

Thus  we  have  noted  or  alluded  to  all  the  passages  of  the  New  Testament 
which  have  seemed  to  us  to  have  any  bearing  on  the  '  doctrine  of  baptisms.' 
In  conclusion,  we  may  balance  the  evidence  we  have  before  us,  thus : 

Evidence  in  favor  of  the  baptism  of  the  lIolyGliost^  as  alone  belonging  to 
Christianity  : — 1,  the  testimony  of  John  as  recorded  by  all  the  evangelists  ; 
2,  the  testimony  of  Christ ;  (Acts  1:  5;)  3,  the  commission  which  Christ  gave 
his  disciples  ;  4,  Christ's  example;  5,  the  testimony  of  Paul ;  6,  the  example 
of  Paul ;  7,  the  testimony  of  Peter  in  his  epistle. 

Evidence  in  favor  of  water  baptism : — The  example  of  Peter  and  his  asso- 
ciate apostles  in  the  beginning  of  their  ministry, — subtracting  the  evidence 
that  they  were  at  that  time  partially  the  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist. 

With  such  a  balance  before  us,  we  cannot  but  be  astonished  that  any  should 
be  found  in  this  day,  clinging  to  the  baptism  of  John  ;  and  our  astonishment 
is  increased  by  the  fact,  that  the  multitudes  who  do  thus  cling  to  the  baptism 
of  John,  are  generally  more  earnestly  at  war  with  each  other  respecting  the 
mode  of  '  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,'  than  with  the  devil  in  behalf  of 
that  gospel  baptism,  which  gives  '  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  tow^ard 
God.'  We  doubt  not  that  immersion  was  the  primitive  mode  of  water  bap- 
tism. But  we  still  say,  that  a  single  immersion  in  water  is  no  more  Christian 
baptism,  than  a  single  sprinkling  of  water.  Even  as  shadows  of  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  one  is  no  better  than  the  other ;  for  the  baptism  of  the 
HolyGhost  is  Called  'the  blood  of  sprinUing,^  (Heb.  12:  24)  and  was  typified 
by  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices  under  the  law.  It  is  also  most 
frequently  represented  as  an  effusion.  Acts  2:  17,  &c.  The  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  supper  shadows  forth  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  fig- 
tire  of  'drinking.'*  (See  also  John  7:  37 — 39.)  The  truth  is,  the  operation 
by  which  believers  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  is  properly  represented  by  any  or 
all  of  these  modes  combined.  It  makes  little  difference  whether  a  spunge  is 
dipped  or  sprinkled — whether  water  is  poured  on  it  or  overflows  it.  If  it  is 
filled  with  water,  we  care  little  whether  it  was  filled  by  an  operation  which 
is  called  '  immersion,'  or  '  effusion,'  or  'sprinkling,'  or  '  drinking.'  He  that 
receives  Christ  by  faith,  is  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  sprinkled  with 
the  blood  of  Jesus,  the  Spirit  is  'poured  out'*  upon  him,  and  he  is  '  made  to 
drink  into  that  one  Spirit.'  We  confess  however,  the  first  figure  suits  our 
taste  better  than  any  other.  We  love  to  think  of  Christian  baptism,  as  AN 
EVERLASTING   IMMERSION  IN  THE  BLOOD   OP   ChRIST. 


§61.    MARRIAGE. 

So  long  as  the  following  thrilling  description  of  latter-day  repentance  stands 
On  the  record  of  God,  it  can  never  be  unimportant  to  investigate  the  bearings 
of  the  matrimonial  connection,  on  our  allegiance  to  Jesus  Christ. 

"  I  will  pour  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
the  spirit  of  grace  and  of  supplications  :  and  they  shall  look  upon  me  whom  they 
have  pierced,  and  they  shall  mourn  for  him,  as  one  mourneth  for  his  only  son, 
and  shall  be  in  bitterness  for  him,  as  one  that  is  in  bitterness  for  his  first-born. 
In  that  day  shall  there  be  a  great  mourning  in  Jerusalem,  as  the  mourning  of 
Hadad-rimmon  in  the  valley  of  Megiddon.  And  the  land  shall  mourn,  every  fam- 
ily ppart ;  the  family  of  the  house  of  David  apart,  and  their  wives  apart ;  the 
family  of  the  house  of  Nathan  apart,  and  their  wives  apart;  the  family  of  the 
house  of  Levi  apart,  and  their  wives  apart;  the  family  of  Shimei  apart,  and  their 
wives  apart ;  all  the  families  that  remain,  every  family  apart,  and  their  wives 
apart."  Zech.  12:  10—14. 

Those  conservatives  who  are  ever  ready  to  raise  an  outcry  about '  separa- 
ting man  and  wife,'  whenever  the  all-engrossing  claims  of  Jesus  Christ  are 
brought  to  view,  are  certainly  conservative  '  above  that  which  is  written.' 
We  think  the  Shakers  even  a  more  rational  people.  For  though  they  handle 
the  subject  of  sexual  intercourse  erroneously,  they  are  certainly  not  in  an 
error  in  regard  to  the  imioortance  of  the  subject.  We  shall  give  our  general 
views  on  this  matter,  by  a  few  comments  on  the  above  passage  from  Zecha- 
riah. 

We  have  no  doubt  that  the  ^'mourning'  spoken  of  by  the  prophet,  came  to 
pass  (at  least  in  part)  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  afterward  during  the 
apostolic  age,  w^hen  three  thousand  Jews  in  Jerusalem,  and  multitudes  in  all 
the  coasts  of  Israel,  looked  on  '  their  king  whom  they  had  crucified,'  and 
mourned  for  him  in  '  bitterness'  of  soul.  But  did  the  primitive  believers 
mourn  in  the  manner  described  by  Zechariah,  i.  e.  ^  every  family  apart,  and 
their  wives  apart  T  In  order  to  answer  this  question,  we  will  examine  the 
principal  witnesses  of  the  New  Testament. 

I.  As  the  primitive  church  were  '•followers  of  Jesus  Christ,'^  we  shall  put 
O'jrselves  in  the  way  to  ascertain  something  about  their  spirit,  by  looking  into 
his  teachings  and  example.  He  was  never  married.  He  spoke  of  those  who- 
*  made  themselves  eunuchs  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake,'  in  a  manner 
that  indicated  his  approval.  Matt.  19:  12.  He  said  he  '  came  to  send  a 
sword'  through  men's  households.  Matt.  10:  34- — 36.  He  made  it  a  condi- 
tion of  discipleship,  that  men  should  '  hate'  and  '  forsake'  their  wives  among 
other  earthly  valuables  ;  (Luke  14:  26  ;)  and  when  afterwards  he  promised 
that  those  valuables  should  be  restored,  with  a  hundred-fold  increase,  he  omit- 
ted mentioning  wives  in  his  enumeration.  Mark  10:  29,  30.  Finally  he 
declared  that  there  would  be  '  neither  marrying  nor  giving  in  marriage,'  in 
the  resurrection ;  i.  e.  in  the  world  to  which  his  kingdom  pertained.  And 
in  this  last  declaration  we  undoubtedly  have  a  clue  to  the  meaning  of  his  ex^ 


I 


482  MARRIAGE. 

ample,  and  many  of  his  Instructions.  He  was  urging  his  way  toward  the 
resurrection,  and  he  called  men  to  folloAv  him.  He  therefore  partly  antici- 
pated the  manner  of  life  on  which  he  was  soon  to  enter,  and  encouraged  oth- 
ers to  do  Hkewise.  We  should  expect  that  the  followers  of  such  a  leader 
would  not  regard  marriage  as  a  very  important  institution,  at  least  to  them- 
selves ;  and  in  the  '  mourning'  process,  by  which  they  became  his  disciples 
and  entered  into  spiritual  fellowship  with  him,  it  would  certainly  be  natural 
and  necessary,  that  they  should  in  spirit,  if  not  literally,  part  with  their 
'Wives.         '  ^^-^  -  y,^^...^AA4 

II.  Paul  followed  hard  after  Christ ;  and  his  spirit  was  certainly  the  chief 
leaven  of  a  great  part  of  the  primitive  church.  He  likewise  was  not  married; 
and  he  avowedly  wished  that  all  men  were  like  himself  in  this  respect.  1  Cor. 
T:  7.  His  guiding  principle  was  the  same  as  Christ's  ;  he  looked  forward  to 
the  resurrection  as  his  home,  and  considering  that  '  the  time  was  short'  that 
must  elapse  before  his  arrival  there,  he  dechned  encumbering  himself  with 
relations  that  belong  only  to  this  world.  Though  he  gave  no  commandment 
to  others  on  this  subject,  but  declared  '  marriage  honorable  in  all ;  (thus 
standing  far  apart  from  Papists  and  Shakers  ;)  yet  he  enjoined  that  '  they 
that  had  wives  should  be  as  though  they  had  none,'  (1  Cor.  T:  29 — 31,) 
evidently  meaning  that  they  should  not  regard  the   matrimonial  relation   as 

any  thing  more  than  a  temporary external   ar^aiigemeiit ;  '  for,'  says   he, 

*  the  fashion  of  this  world  passeth  away.'  Such  were  the  instructions  and 
example  of  the  apostle  who  had  the  '  care  of  all  the  churches.'  Under  such 
influences,  the  primitive  church  must  have  passed  through  a  spiritual  if  not  a 
literal  fulfilment  of  Zechariah's  prophecy. 

III.  According  to  the  constant  and  most  earnest  testimony  of  all  the  wri- 
ters of  the  New  Testament,  the  love  of  Jesus  Christ  ought  to  supplant  all 
other  affections.  The  '  washing  of  regeneration,'  (as  has  been  shown  in  the 
article  on  the  '  Twofold  Nature  of  the  Second  Birth,')  consists  in  being 
cleansed  by  the  word,  from  all  idols  and  uncleannesses.  Now  of  all  the 
attachments  of  this  world,  the  marriage  connection  is  undoubtedly  the  strong- 
est— that  over  which  selfishness  is  most  jealous.  The  natural  rank  of  this 
attachment  is  manifested  in  the  appointment  of  God,  that  'a  man  shall  leave 
father  and  mother,  and  cleave  unto  his  wife.'  This  then  may  be  regarded 
as  the  representative  of  all  other  idolatries  ;  and  if  it  should  be  said,  'A  man 
shall  leave  his  wife  and  cleave  unto  Jesus  Christ,'  the  saying  would  virtually 
cover  the  whole  ground  of  Christ's  declaration — '  Except  a  man  forsake  fa- 
ther, mother,  brother,  sister,  houses,  lands,  &c.,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.' 
Such  in  fact  appears  to  be  the  spirit  .of  Zechariah's  prophecy  under  consider- 
ation. The  people  were  to  mourn  for  Jesus  Christ,  with  such  affection  as 
should  separate  husbands  from  their  wives,  and  of  course  sunder  every  other 
earthly  attachment.  As  surely  as  Christ  spoke  the  truth,  when  he  said  to  his 
disciples,  '  Now  are  ye  clean  through  my  word' — as  surely  as  it  was  true  of 
some  of  the  Corinthians,  that  they  '  were  washed  and  sanctified' — as  surely 
as  the  object  of  Christ's  death  was  secured  in  presenting  '  to  himself  a  holy 
and  glorioas  church,  without  spot  or  wrinkle,' — so  surely  were  those  of 
whom  these  things  were  said,  weaned  and  cleansed  from  the  marriage  fashion 


I 


MARRIAGE.  483 


of  this  world,  and  brought  to  know  m  spirit  no  husband  or  mfe  but  Christ 
and  his  church. 

IV.  Paul's  gospel  of  the  cross  and  the  resurrection,  necessarily  involves  all 
that  is  described  by  Zechariah.  *  They  shall  look,'  says  the  prophet,  'on  him 
whom  they  have  pierced,  and  shall  mourn — every  family  apart,  and  their 
wives  apart.'  Accordingly  says  Paul,  'I  determined  to  know  nothing  but 
Christ  crucified ;'  and  with  this  intent,  he  lived  unmarried,  and  wished  all 
might  do  the  same. 

The  very  same  principle  that  made  the  cross  tlie  end  of  circumcision,  also 
nailed  to  it  the  worldly  ordinance  of  marriage.  '  The  law  [of  marriage]  hath 
dominion  over  a  man  [only]  so  long  as  he  Hveth.'  Christ  having  died,  and 
beyond  death  having  become  the  head  of  all  who  believe  on  him,  removes 
them  from  the  territory  of  the  law.  '  In  the  resurrection  there  is  neither 
marrying  nor  giving  in  marriage.'  '  Why  then,'  says  the  apostle  to  believers 
in  the  resurrection,  '  are  ye  subject  to  ordinances  ?'  What  ordinance  could 
he,  so  far  as  principle  is  concerned,  more  fitly  refer  to,  than  that  of  marriage  ? 

In  these  days,  we  doubt  not,  he  would  have  occasion  to  say — '  If  I  yet 
preach  [marriage,]  why  do  I  yet  suffer  persecution  ?  Then  is  the  offense  of 
the  cross  ceased.' 

^  That  we  may  leave  no  fair  occasion  of  misunderstanding  and  abusing  the 
views  we  have  presented,  we  must  now  guard  them  by  producing  some  qual- 
ifying testimony. 

1.  Jesus  Christ  did  not  require  or  even  exhort  men  to  abstain  from  mar- 
riage for  the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake,  but  left  every  man  to  choose  his  own 
course  according  to  the  power  and  will  given  him  of  God.  Some  of  his  dis- 
ciples were  married,  and  were  not  required  to  procure  a  divorce,  or  abstain 
from  intercourse. 

2.  That  he  had  no  bigoted  legal  aversion  against  marriage,  like  that  of  the 
Shakers,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  he  attended  a  wedding  with  his  disci- 
ples in  the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  and  there  commenced  the  manifesta- 
tion of  his  glory. 

3.  Paul  very  cautiously  refrained  from  making  any  law  against  marriage. 
His  advice  on  the  subject  (1  Cor.  7)  is  so  shaped  as  to  leave  every  one  per- 
fectly free.  He  positively  says,  '  he  that  giveth  in  marriage  doeth  well  f — 
'  marriage  is  honorable  in  all ;'  and  he  speaks  of  those  who  forbid  to  marry, 
as  deluded  apostates. 

4:  Instead  of  making  the  distinction  between  the  clergy  and  the  laity, 
which  is  made  by  the  Papists,  in  prohibiting  the  marriage  of  the  former,  he 
speaks  of  bishops  and  deacons,  in  conne^cion  with  their  wives,  (1  Tim.  3,) 
with  evident  approbation  of  the  connection ;  making  a  minister's  good  man- 
agement of  his  own  family,  a  guaranty  of  Ms  competence  to  rule  the  church 
of  God. 

5.  His  directions  to  the  married  show  that  his  objections  to  matrimony 
were  not  objections  to  sexual  intercourse,  but  to  the  distractions  and  '  troub- 
les of  the  flesh'  incident  to  a  worldly  and  transitory  connection.  A  rabid 
marriage-hater  would  have  said  to  the  married,  '  If  you  cannot  be  lawfully 
divorced,  yet  you  ought  to  abstain  from  the  abomination.'  But  the  apostle 
64 


434 


MARRiAGffi. 


says,  *  Defraud  ye  not  one  the  other,  except  it  be  with  consent  for  a  titn^^ 
that  ye  may  give  yourselves  to  fasting  and  prayer.' 

6.  In  relation  to  Christ's  requirement  that  men  should  '  hate'  and  '  forsake^ 
their  wives,  in  order  to  be  his  disciples^  it  must  be  considered,  that  it  extends 
also  to  every  other  earthly  good.  In  whatever  sense  men  are  called  to  part 
with  their  wives,  in  the  same  sense  they  must  al^o  forsake  '  their  lives.' — •' 
So  that  if  We  push  the  words  of  Christ  to  the  extremity  of  their  literal 
meaning,  we  make  them  require  suicide  as  well  as  Shakerism.  Moreover 
the  NcAV  Testament  expressly  enjoins  on  believers  to  '  love  their  wives  even 
as  Christ  loved  the  church.'  Eph.  5:  25^ 

7.  Paul's  gospel  nails  marriage  to  the  cross  only  in  the  same  way  as  it 
nails  circumcision,  and  other  worldly  ordinances ^  We  may  therefore  apply 
what  Paul  says  of  circumcision,  to  marriage.  While,  on  the  one  hand,  he 
says  to  the  Colossians,  '  Why  as  though  living  in  the  world  are  ye  subject  ta 
ordinances  ?'  and  to  the  Galatians,  '  If  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit 
you  nothing  ;'— -on  the  other,  he  says  three  times  orer,  'Neither  eircumdsion 
availeth  any  thing ^  nor  tiJ^ciRCtMCisioi^r.*  Accordingly  he  circumcised 
Timothy,  though  he  had  just  before  had  *  no  small  disputation'  with  certain 
legalists  who  insisted  on  the  necessity  of  circumcision,  and  had  gone  with 
Barnabas  to  Jerusalem^  and  procured  a  judgment  of  the  apostles  against 
them.  Acts  15  &  16.  Nor  was  he  in  all  this  inconsistent ;  for  it  is  one  thing 
to  be  '  subject '  to  law  as  a  slave,  and  it  i^  another  to  conform  to  law  as  a 
freeman.  Marriage,  then,  is  not  to  be  absolutely  eschewed  because  it  is 
hailed  with  circumcision  to  the  cross* 

8.  An  unauthorized  and  evil  use  is  made  of  the  text^  *  In  the  resurrection 
they  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage,'  when  it  is  taken  for  proof 
that  the  distinction  between  the  sexes^— the  very  image  of  God^s  to  be  ob-- 
literated  in  heaven,  and  all  the  glorious  offices  and  affections  growing  out  of 
that  distinction  are  to  have  an  end.  '  The  fashion  of  this  world  passeth  away;^ 
but  not  the  constitution  of  human  nature.  The  ivorldly  ordinance  of  mar* 
riage  is  nailed  to  the  cross  with  the  hody  of  Jesus  ;  but  the  substance^  of  which 
that  ordinance  is  a  shadow,  ascends  with  his  spirit  to  paradise.  They  are 
greatly  deluded,  therefore,  who  think  to  follow  Jesus  and  Paulj  by  mutilating 
Or  smothering  the  susceptibilities  of  their  social  nature. 

9.  While  believers  in  the  primitive  church  reckoned  themselves  spiritually 
crucified  with  Christ,  and  in  initial  fellowship  with  his  resurrection,  so  thai 
in  many  things  (especially  those  which  pertain  to  the  inward  man,  and  to 
non-essential  ordinances)  it  was  proper  that  they  should  adopt  the  modes  and 
liberty  of  the  heavenly  state  ;  and  in  all  things  they  were  bound  to  look  for  j 
and  hasten  unto  '  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth  ;'  yet  they  also  reck' 
oned  themselves  in  some  sense  as  citizens  of  this  world,  '  waiting  for  the  re-^ 
demption  of  their  bodies,'  *  not  as  though  they  had  already  attained'  the  full 
resurrection  and  glory  of  Christ.  Under  the  influence  of  this  double  reck* 
oning,  their  practice  properly  and  necessarily  assumed  a  mixed  character. 
While  on  the  one  hand,  as  citizens  of  heaven,  they  abandoned  the  world's 
views  of  the  importance  of  marriage,  and  some  abstained  from  it ;  while  all 
*  who  had  wiveSj  were  in  spirit  as  though  they  had  none  j'  on  the  other  hand, 


APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  485 

&s  Citizens  of  this  world,  they  kept  a  good  conscience  toward  man  as  well  as 
God,  by  observing  the  ordinances  and  laws  of  this  world  concerning  the  in* 
tereourse  of  the  sexes. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  may  be  stated  in  the  language  of  Paul's 
motto  :— -'  Neither  marriage  availeth  any  thing,  nor  celibacy  availeth  any 
thing  ;  but  a  new  creature— faith  that  worketh  by  love— the  keeping  of  th@ 
commandments  of  God.' 


§62.    'APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.' 

'The  '  Oxford  Tract'  writers,  in  common  with  the  Papists,,  give  the  clergy 
©f  their  own  church  a  monopoly  of  the  business  of  dispensing  salvation,  in  the  - 
following  manner.  1.  The  reception  of  the  ordinances  of  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  say  they,  are  indispensable  to  salvation.  2.  The  efficacy  of 
those  ordinances  to  save  men,  depends  on  the  validity  of  the  ordination  of  the 
priest  who  administers  them.  3.  The  only  valid  ordination  is  that  which  has 
eome  down  from  the  apostles,  by  regular  transmission  from  bishop  to  bishop, 
in  the  Episcopal  and  Romish  churches.  In  other  words,  Christ,  they  say, 
gave  the  apostles  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  they  gave  them  to 
their  successors ;  and  so  those  keys  have  come  into  the  hands  of  the  present 
bishops  and  priests  of  the  old  hereditary  churches,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  dis- 
senters and  heretics  whatsoever.  Now  the  basis  of  this  whole  superstructure 
is  the  assumption^  that  the  ecclesiastical  organization  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  was  designed  to  continue  in  the  world  through  successive 
generations  till  the  end  of  time ;  and  that  the  authority  which  \]hi'ist  gave 
his  apostles,  he  intended  also  to  give  their  successors.  This  assumption  rests 
almost  entirely  on  one  little  text :  viz..  Matt.  28:  20,—-'  Xo,  I  am  with  you 
alway^  even  unto  the  end  of  the  ivorld,''  That  this  is  the  corner  stone  of  the  he- 
reditary churches,  any  one  may  see  by  reading  the  first  volume  of  the  '  Tracts 
for  the  Times.'  This  text  is  there  quoted  almost  exclusively,  on  all  occasions 
where  proof  of  the  continuation  and  present  existence  of  the  original  organi- 
zation is  required.  In  a  cursory  perusal  we  counted  twenty  instances  in 
which  it  is  thus  quoted.  A  few  of  those  instances,  we  will  here  introduce, 
to  show  the  purport  and  bearing  of  the  whole. 

"  Our  Lord  ended  the  sentence  in  which  Ije  endued  them  [the  apostles]  with 
power  to  baptize,  with  the  promise  of  his  assistance  in  the  discharge  of  their 
functions  through  all  time.  '  Go, '  said  he,  '  baptize  all  nations  :  and,  lo,  I  am 
with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  v/orid  :'  a  phrase  which,  as  addressed 
to  mortal  men,  must  clearly  have  been  understood  as  a  promise  of  continual  as- 
iBistance  to  them  and  to  their  successors."    Vol.  L  page  33. 

"  It  would  lead  us  into  endless  difficulties  were  we  to  admit  that,  when  ad^ 
ministered  by  a  minister  duly  authorized  According  to  the  outward  forms  of  the 
Church,  either  Baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper  depended  for  its  validity  either  QU 


436 


APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION. 


the  moral  and  spiritual  attainments  of  that  minister,  or  on  the  frame  of  mind  in 
which  he  might  have  received,  at  his  ordination,  the  outward  and  visible  sign  of 

his  authority The  very  question   of  worth,   indeed, 

with  relation  to  such  matters,  is  absurd.  Who  is  worthy  ?  Who  is  a  fit  and 
meet  dispenser  of  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  What  are,  after  all,  the  petty 
differences  between  sinner  and  sinner,  when  viewed  in  relation  to  Him  whose 
eyes  are  too  pure  to  behold  iniquity,  and  who  charges  his  very  angels  with  folly  ? 
And  be  it  remembered  that  the  apostolic  powers,  if  not  transmitted  through 
these,  in  some  instances  corrupt  channels,  have  not  been  transmitted  to  our 
times  at  all.  Unless  then  we  acknowledge  the  reality  of  such  transmission,  we 
must  admit  that  the  Church  which  Christ  founded  is  no  longer  to  be  found  upon 
the  earth,  and  that  the  promise  of  his  proteclion,  so  far  from  being  available  to 
the  end  of  the  world,  is  forgotten  and  out  of  date  already."  p.  37. 

"  That  the  apostles  were  in  some  sense  or  other  to  remain  on  earth  to  the  end 
of  all  things,  is  plain  from  the  text,   '  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,'  &c."  p.  48. 

"  Dr.  Spencer. — Our  Lord  promised  to  be  with  his  apostles  in  their  character 
of  teachers  and  baptizers  of  the  nations,  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 
What  did  he  mean  by  that  ? 

"  John  Evans. — He  could  not  mean  that  Peter,  James,  or  John,  or  their 
brethren,  were  to  live  forever  on  earth  :  for  we  know  that  they  are  long  since 
dead. 

"Dr.  S. — Certainly  not ;  and  we  must  therefore  ascribe  to  his  words  the  only 
other  meaning  which  they  can  reasonably  bear.  As  he  could  not  have  spoken 
o^  i\\Q  persons  of  the  apostles,  he  must  have  spoken  of  their  ojjices.  He  must 
have  meant  that  though  Peter,  James,  and  John,  should  be  taken  from  the  world, 
the  true  Church  should  never  be  left  without  apostles,  but  be  guided  by  their 
successors  to  the  end  of  time."  p.  229. 

[The  commission  given  to  Peter  in  Matt.  16:  19,]  "  has  been  handed  down, 
by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  from  bishops  to  bishops,  and  will  so  continue  to  the 
end  of  time,  according  to  that  promise,  whereby  our  Lord  engaged  to  continue 
with  them  always  in  the  exercise  of  it,  when  he  sold  to  the  apostles,  *  Lo,  I  am 
with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.'  "  p.  261.  See  also  pages 
46,  48,  60,  89,  227,  341,  361,  383,  407,  433. 

The  reader  will  perceive  that  the  value  of  this  corner  stone  of  Oxfordism 
depends  on  the  interpretation  of  the  expression,  '  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.'  The  tract  writers  coolly  assume  that  it  means,  '  through  all  time,' 
*  to  the  end  of  all  things,'  '  to  the  end  of  time  ;'  and  then  they  are  at  liberty, 
nay  they  are  obliged,  to  expand  the  promise  of  Christ  thus  : — '  Lo,  I  am  with 
you  and  your  successors,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.'  Now  it  is  too 
great  a  tax  on  our  charity  to  believe  that  the  professors  and  inmates  of  a  uni- 
versity so  thoroughly  steeped  in  Greek  literature  as  that  of  Oxford,  are  igno- 
rant, and  therefore  honest,  in  this  assumption.  A  very  slight  examination 
of  parallel  passages,  even  in  the  English  New  Testament,  might  have  given 
them  an  insight  into  the  meaning  of  the  expression  '  the  end  of  the  world,' 
which  would  have  nullified  the  whole  argument  which  they  have  built  upon 
it.  We  are  constrained  to  believe  that  they  are  willing  to  take  advantage 
of  a  mistranslation  and  a  consequent  popular  misapprehension,  for  purposes 
of  imposture  ;  and  that  they  feel  sedare  in  doing  so,  because  the  mass  of  their 
opposers,  the  dissenting  clergy,  consent  to  the  prevalence  of  the  same  uiisap- 
prehension,  and  avail  themselves  of  it  in  like  manner. 


APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  437 

The  Greek  word  oio^t  which  is  translated  'world'  in  Matt.  28:  20,  and  else- 
where through  the  New  Testament,  according  to  all  competent  lexicographers 
and  commentators,  refers  n^t  to  the  earth,  but  to  a  division  o^time,  and  should 
be  translated  a^,  or  dispensation.     Kobinson  explains  the  matter  thus  : — 

"  The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  dispute  concerning  the  two  ages  of  the  world, 
the  one  of  which  they  called  the  •  present  age  or  world,'  the  other  '  the  age  or 
world  to  come.'  The  former,  in  their  opinion,  was  to  comprehend  the  time  from 
the  creation  to  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  and  was  marked  by  imbecility,  im- 
perfection, ignorance,  vice,  and  calamity.  The  latter  they  referred  to  the  joyful 
time  when  the  Messiah  should  come  in  majesty  to  establish  his  dominion  :  when 
he  should  subdue  to  himself  all  kingdoms,  recall  the  dead  to  life,  sit  in  judgment, 
&c.  ;  when,  in  short,  he  should  introduce  a  ne}v  era,  distinguished  by  liberty, 
knowledge,  piety,  and  felicity." — Lexicon,  article  aion. 

Bishop  Newton,  of  the  Episcopal  church,  (who  ought  to  be  good  authority 
at  Oxford,)  commenting  on  Matt:  24:  3,  says — 

•"  The  end  of  the  world,  or  the  conclusion  of  the  age,  is  the  same  period  with  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem ;  for  there  being  two  ages  among  the  Jews,  the  one 
under  the  law,  the  other  under  the  Messiah ;  when  the  city  and  temple  were  de- 
stroyed, and  the  Jewish  polity  in  church  and  state  dissolved,  the  former  must  of 
course  be  concluded,  and  the  age  under  the  Messiah  commenced." 

The  correctness  of  these  expositions,  and  the  utter  absurdity  of  any  other, 
is  seen  at  a  glance,  by  consulting  even  the  English  versions  of  1  Cor.  10: 
11, — '  All  these  things  happened  unto  them  for  ensamples  :  and  they  are 
written  for  our  admonition,  upon  whom  the  eri^s  of  the  wo7'ld  are  come  ;' — 
and  Heb.  9:  26, — ^Now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he  [Christ]  ap- 
peared, to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself.'  What  world  was  that, 
the  end  of  which  had  come  upon  the  primitive  church  ?  What  world  was 
that,  in  the  end  of  which  Christ  appeared  ?  The  only  answer  that  can  satisfy 
common  sense,  is,  the  world  or  age  or  dispensation  of  Mosaic  Judaism,  which 
came  to  an  end  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Christ  clearly  determined 
the  meaning  of  the  expression,  '•the  end  of  the  world^  in  the  24th  of  Matthew. 
His  disciples  asked  him  what  should  be  '  the  sign  of  the  end  of  the  world  T* 

*  This  question,  with  its  context,  stands  thus  : — 'When  shall  these  things  he?  andichat 
shall  be  the  sign  of  thy  coining,  and  of  the  end  of  the  world  s"  '  These  things'  in  the  first 
clause,  refers  to  the  destruction  of  the  tenr.ple,  predicted  in  the  verse  before.  Notwith- 
standing' the  gross  absurdity  of  supposing-  that  the  disciples  asked  in  the  same  breath, 
one  question  about  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  and  another  about  a  subject  as  far  re- 
moved from  that,  and  from  the  whole  subject  of  the  previous  conversation,  as  the  east 
is  from  the  west,  yet  some  will  have  it  that  this  question  relates  to  two,  or  even  three 
widely  separate  events,  viz:  1,  the  destruction  of  the  temple;  2,  the  coming  of  Christ, 
which  is  yet  future;  3,  the  final  conflagration  of  the  universe.  Now,  there  is  one  plain 
fact  that  ought  to  make  an  end  of  this  outrage  on  common  sense  forever.  Luke,  in  the 
parallel  passage,  (21:  7,)  records  the  same  question,  in  the  same  words,  only  he  uses 
the  expression  'these  things,'  in  the  last  part  of  the  question,  as  well  as  in  the  first,  in- 
stead of  specifying,  as  Matthew  does,  (he  coming  of  Christ  and  the  end  of  the  world: — 
*  }Vhcn  shall  these  things  he  ?  and  what  sign  will  there  he  tchen  these  things  shall  come  to  pass  ?'' 
This  form  of  the  question  plainly  shows,  that  the  coming  of  Christ  and  the  end  of  the 
world  were  so  identified  as  to  their  time,  in  Luke's  mind,  with  the  destruction  of  the 
temple,  that  he  thought  it  proper  to  comprise  them  all  under  one  term.  The  question 
has  two  parts,  viz  :  first,  as  to  the  time;  second,  as  to  the  tokens  :  but  both  parts  evi- 
dently relate  to  one  complex  event;  viz.,  the  end  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  with  its  con- 
comitants, the  destruction  of  the  temple  in  the  outward  world,  and  the  second  comiiig 
of  Christ  in  the  spiritual  world. 


438  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

He  answered,  '  This  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the, 
world,  for  a  witness  unto  all  nations  ;  and  then  shall  the  end  come.''  Ver.  3, 
14.  What  goes  before  this  answer,  viz.,  predictions  of  events  which  actually 
preceded  the  final  overthrow  of  Judaism ;  and  what  follows  after  it,  viz.,  pre- 
dictions of  the  invasion  of  the  Roman  army  and  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  ;  utter- 
ly forbid  the  apphcation  of  it  to  any  other  event  than  the  termination  of  the 
Mosaic  economy.  If  it  is  objected  that  the  sign  of  the  end,  viz.,  the  universal 
preaching  of  the  gospel,  did  not  come  to  pass  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, we  join  issue  with  the  objector  on  this  point,  and  appeal  to  Mark  16: 
20,  Rom.  10:  18,  Col.  1:  6,  23.  If  the  objector  is  disposed  to  appeal  from 
scripture  to  external  history,  we  will  go  with  him  even  there.  Eusebius, 
the  father  of  ecclesiastical  historians,  is  almost  the  only  authority  that  can  be 
appealed  to  in  relation  to  the  early  ages  of  Christianity.  He  says  in  the  first 
chapter  of  the  third  book  of  his  ecclesiastical  history,  that '  the  holy  apostles 
and  disciples  of  our  Savior,  were  scattered  over  the  whole  world'  in  the  time 
of  Nero,  between  A.  D.  60  and  70  ;  and  again  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  the 
same  book,  that  Hhe  sound  of  the  holy  apostles,  went  throughout  all  the  earth, 
and  their  words  to  the  end  of  the  world ^^  at  the  '  very  time'  when  Jerusalem 
was  nigh  its  destruction. 

Christ  then  had  previously  defined  the  meaning  of  the  language  he  used 
in  his  last  address  to  his  disciples.  He  had  expressly  set  the  time  of  the 
'end  of  the  world.'  His  disciples  knew  that  he  referred  to  an  event  that 
should  come  to  pass  within  the  time  of  the  generation  then  living.  When  he 
said, '  Go  teach  all  nations  &c.,  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world^'  he  placed  in  conjunction  the  very  same  two  events  that  he 
joined  in  Matt.  24:  14,  viz.,  the  testimony  to  all  nations,  and  the  end  of  the 
world.  His  meaning  plainly  ^vas,  '  It  is  your  business  to  proclaim  the  gospel 
to  all  nations,  previous  to  the  predicted  end  of  the  present  order  of  things ; 
and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  till  your  work  is  finished,'  Or  we  may  paraphrase 
his  language  again,  thus  :  *  While  I  go  to  my  Father,  leaving  you  to  publish 
my  gospel  to  the  world,  and  to  encounter  the  turbulence  of  the  last  days  ap- 
parently alone,  still  go  to  your  work  with  good  cheer  ;  for  I  will  be  with  you 
in  spirit  through  this  whole  period  of  my  absence  in  person,  even  till  I  come 
again  at  the  time  of  the  end,  according  to  my  promise.'  It  is  perfectly  evi- 
dent that  the  commission  and  the  promise  in  Matt.  28:  20,  were  given  to  the 
apostles  only.  The  expression,  '-  the  end  of  the  world,'  instead  of  requiring 
or  authorizing  the  interpolation  of  '  their  successors,'  as  the  tract-writers  ar- 
gue, absolutely  forbids  it ;  for  according  to  the  definition  of  Christ,  that  ex- 
pression refers  to  an  event  that  was  to  come  to  pass  before  they,  as  a  body, 
could  have  any  successors  ;  i.  e.,  within  their  own  lifetime. 

We  do  not  deny  that  Christ  is  with  those  who  believe  on  him,  and  preach 
Ms  gospel,  in  all  ages.  This  is  plainly  implied  in  such  texts  as  John  17:  20, 
Acts  10:  35,  and  might  be  inferred  from  the  character  of  God,  without  any 
explicit  promise.  But  we  do  deny  that  Matt.  28:  20,  furnishes  one  particle 
of  proof  of  the  continuance  of  the  primitive  organization,  and  apostohc  author- 
ity, beyond  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  we  afiirm  that  the 
writers  of  the  Oxford  Tracts,  learned  and  devout  as  they  may  seem;  in  making 


tURlTAN    PUSEYISM.  4B9 

fi.  false  intei'pretatlon  of  that  text  their  foundation,  have  based  their  ^hole 
gorgeous  system  of  ecclesiastical  domination  on  a  piece  of  egregious  folly  and 
fraud* 


§  63.    PURITAN  PUSEYISM. 

There  has  never  been  a  time  since  the  Reformation,  when  the  struggle  be- 
tween Prelacy  and  Puritanism  was  so  fierce  as  it  is  now.  The  periodicals 
of  Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians  teem  constantly  with  argument  and 
Hdicule  against  the  principles  and  pretensions  of  Episcopacy.  The  entire 
strength  of  the  religious  world  seems  to  be  gathering  itself  into  the  strife,  and 
the  whole  war  of  the  Reformation  is  evidently  to  be  fought  over  again. 

At  such  a  time  we  think  it  behooves  the  opponents  of  Prelacy  to  consider 
their  own  ways,  and  see  whether  they  have  not  in  a  measure  prepared  the 
ground  in  this  country  for  that  growth  of  formalism  which  now  threatens  to 
overrun  their  territories  and  supplant  their  institutions.  We  entirely  sympa- 
thise with  them  in  their  aversion  to  the  mummeries  of  Popes  and  Bishops  ; 
but  we  are  in  a  better  position  than  they  are,  to  see  how  far  they,  in  the  times 
of  their  undisturbed  possession  of  this  country,  have  countenanced  and  imita- 
ted those  mummeries  ;  and  we  are  disposed  now  to  show  them  their  sins  in 
this  respect,  that  they  may  repent  of  them,  and  go  to  the  battle  with  clean 
hands. 

Prelacy  sets  over  the  parochial  clergy  a  superior  order  of  ministers,  called 
bishops,  as  in  an  army  colonels  are  set  over  captains.  Anti-prelacy  has  but 
one  grade  of  ministers— the  parochial  clergy— and  insists  that  the  institution 
of  a  higher  order  is  anti-republican.  '  Parity'  of  ministerial  rank  is  the  ele-- 
Inent  of  church  government  for  which  the  Congregationalist  and  Presbyterian 
clergy  are  intensely  jealous.  We  will  not  now  go  into  the  question  whether 
one  of  these  systems  is  more  salutary  and  scriptural  than  the  other.  We 
choose  rather  to  direct  attention  to  some  considerations  which  go  to  show  that 
the  essence  of  that  very  *  anti-republicanism'  which  is  charged  upon  Prelacy, 
exists  also  in  Congregationalism  and  Presbyterianism. 

It  should  be  noticed  that  the  self-same  jealousy  for  *  parity'  and  indepen-- 
dence  exists  in  the  Episcopalian  church  as  in  the  anti-prelatical  churches ; 
only  its  seat  is  a  story  higher  in  one  case  than  in  the  other.  The  Congrega- 
tioiialist  captains  are  jealous  for  their  freedom  from  Episcopal  colonels  ;  and 
the  Episcopal  colonels  are  jealous  for  their  freedom  from  Popish  brigadier 
generals.  , '  Parity'  of  hisJiops  is  the  palladium  of  Episcopal  liberty,  just  as 
*  parity'  of  ministers  is  that  of  Puritan  liberty.  Popery,  in  setting  one  bish- 
op over  the  rest  as  a  universal  overseer,  oifends  the  Episcopalian  bishops,  as 
touch  as  Prelacy,  in  setting  bishops  over  the  lower  clergy,  ofFejids  the  clergy 


440  PtJRITAN    PUSEtlSM. 

of  the  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists.*  We  see  by  this,  that  men  may 
be  jealous  for  '  parity'  when  they  look  up,  and  at  the  same  time  very  -well 
pleased  with  distinctions  of  rank  when  they  look  doivn.  This  is  human  na- 
ture. Let  us  see  if  Congregationalist  and  Presbyterian  clergymen  are  free 
from  it. 

The  principle  of  '  parit}^,'  when  carried  out  into  pure  republicanism,  not 
only  pulls  popes  down  among  the  bishops,  and  bishops  down  among  the  par- 
ish  ministers,  but  parish  ministers  down  among  the  people.  Is  this  kind  of 
'  parity  '  cherished  in  our  Puritan  churches  ?  We  are  very  sure  it  was  not 
a  few  years  ago,  if  it  is  now.  The  people  used  to  be  taught,  and  probably 
have  a  strong  impression  to  this  day,  that  a  parish  minister  is  a  commissioned 
officer  of  Christ,  taking  rank  above  them  as  a  special  '  servant  of  the  Lord,' 
and  entrusted  with  exclusive  power  of  dispensing  the  sacraments.  Indeed, 
within  our  own  remembrance,  Congregational  ministers  have  claimed  the 
*  power  of  the  keys,'  or  something  very  much  like  it,  by  asserting  against 
those  who  opposed  them,  the  prerogative  given  in  the  text — '  Whatsoever  ye 
shall  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,'  &c.  Who  can  doubt  that  the 
Congregational  and  Presbyterian  clergy  w^ould  resist  and  cry  doAvn  any^i^- 
tempts  of  the  common  people  to  establish  practical  '  parity '  by  doing  their 
own  preaching  and  administering  the  ordinances  for  themselves  ?  As  long 
as  it  is  the  prelatical  bull  that  gores  their  ox,  they  stand  firm  for  their  rights  ; 
but  if  it  should  be  found  that  their  own  parish  bull  is  goring  the  people's  ox, 
we  imagine  they  would  say — '  That  alters  the  case.' 

It  is  urged  on  behalf  of  the  anti-prelatical  churches,  that  their  clergy  are 
elected  by  the  people,  and  that  in  this  respect  their  system  is  more  republi- 
can than  that  of  their  opponents.  But  is  it  so  ?  Do  the  people  really  elect 
their  ministers  in  the  Congregational  churches  according  to  republican  prin- 
ciples ?  In  the  free  State  governments,  all  citizens  are  elgible  to  office. 
Are  all  church  members  eligible  to  the  ministry  ?  Churches  may  indeed 
choose  their  own  ministers,  but  they  must  choose  them  from  a  limited  number 
of  persons  previously  hcensed  by  the  associate  clergy.  The  clerical  body  has 
the  prerogative  of  primary  nomination,  and  the  churches  only  confirm  their 
appointments  and  employ  their  nominees. 

The  bare  fact  that  one  man  in  each  church  is  empowered  either  for  a  term 
of  years  or  for  Hfe,  to  superintend  or  direct  its  business,  to  shape  its  opinions, 
to  perform  its  public  praying  and  preaching,  and  to  administer  its  ordinances, 
gives  a  decidedly  monarchical  aspect  to  the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian 
systems.  Their  churches  stand  as  anomalies  in  the  midst  of  our  secular  par- 
ish-machineries. If  the  Pope  is  guilty  of  anti-republicanism  in  the  first  de- 
gree, and  Episcopal  bishops  in  the  second  degree,  all  our  village  clergymen 
are  guilty  of  the  same  crime  in  the  third  degree.  It  matters  not  whether  a 
man  presides  as  a  priest  over  all  Christendom  like  the  Pope,  or  over  a  pro- 
vincial diocese  like  a  bishop,  or  over  a  little  parish  like  a  Congregational 

*  The  bishop  of  the  diocese  of  South  Carolina,  concluded  his  judg-ment  on  Ihe  trial  of 
bishop  Onderdonk  with  the  following-  observation  : — 'The  occasion  reminds  us  to  cling- 
with  tenacity  to,  and  to  be  thankful  for,  the  divinely-ordered,  the  essential  indepen- 
dence of  each  diocese.' 


p 


PURITAN    PUSEYISM.  441 


minister.     If  the  distinction  of  rank  and  power  is  substantially  the  same  in 
the  several  cases,  the  anti-republicanism  is  the  same. 

We  would  not  be  understood  as  taking  ground  with  the  anti-prelatists  on 
the  value  of  republicanism  in  church  government.  In  our  view  it  is  not  neces- 
sarily a  censure  of  a  religious  institution,  to  say  that  it  is  anti-republican. 
The  kmgdom  of  heaven  is  certainly  a  monarchy.  God  is  the  autocrat  of  cre- 
ation, omnipotent  and  irresponsible.  And  the  church,  so  far  as  it  is  a  part 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  is  governed  by  authorities  which  proceed  from 
God  downward,  and  not  from  the  people  upward.  The  mischief  of  arbitrary 
government  lies  not  in  the  nature  of  things,  but  in  the  proneness  of  corrupt 
men  to  abuse  power.  We  object  not  to  the  parish-monarchies  of  our  clergy- 
men, nor  even  to  the  larger  monarchies  of  the  bishops,  or  the  universal  mon- 
archy of  the  Pope,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  anti-republican.  If  these 
functionaries  were  fit  for  the  offices  they  claim,  and  were  really  ordained  of 
God,  we  would  submit  to  them  cheerfully  without  finding  any  fault  with  the 
forms  of  their  government.  Our  difficulty  with  them  all,  is,  that  we  have  no 
evidence  that  they  are  commissioned  from  above,  but  much  to  the  contrary. 
Their  sin  is,  that  they  have  set  themselves  up  as  priests  over  the  people, 
without  authority ;  and  the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  clergy  are  as  ^ 
really  guilty  of  this  as  the  bishops  and  the  Pope. 

We  ask  them  to  consider  whether  their  small  assumptions  of  priestly  power 
have  not  prepared  the  way  for  the  larger  pretensions  of  those  who  are  now 
seeking  to  supplant  them  ; — whether  the  distinction  which  they  have  kept  up 
between  themselves  and  the  people,  and  the  monopoly  of  church-teaching 
and  administration  of  ordinances  which  they  have  claimed,  has  not  predis- 
posed the  public  mind  to  receive  the  monstrous  impostures  of  the  Episcopal 
and  Eomish  clergy.  At  all  events,  so  long  as  they  claim  and  exercise  the 
authority  of  priests,  on  however  small  a  scale,  the  charge  of  anti-republi- 
canism, brought  agauist  the  bishops  and  Pope  for  exercising  the  same 
authority  on  a  larger  scale,  comes  from  them  with  an  ill  grace. 

Let  us  see  if  the  anti-prelatists  are  not  implicated  on  some  other  points  in 
the  impostures  which  they  condemn  in  their  adversaries.  They  complain 
loudly  of  the  arrogance  and  bigotry  of  the  prelates,  in  claiming  for  the 
Episcopal  churches  a  monopoly  of  God's  '  covenanted  mercies,'  and  denying 
the  safety  of  any  out  of  their  fold.  But  have  not  the  complainants  them- 
selves labored  in  times  past,  to  produce  the  impression  that  salvation  is  not 
to  be  had  without  joining  their  church  or  some  other  visible  body  of  profes- 
sors ?  If  so,  the  only  difference  between  them  and  the  prelates,  is,  that  the 
former  extend  the  tremendous  prerogative  of  dispensing  salvation  to  several 
sects,  while  the  latter  confine  it  to  one.  Are  the  Congregationahsts  ready 
even  now,  when  the  storm  of  Puseyism  is  upon  them,  to  throw  overboard 
their  assumptions  on  this  point,  and  confess  that  men  may  believe  in  Christ 
and  be  saved  without  joining  any  visible  church  ? 

Again,  the  Congregationahsts  and  their  allies  in  the  war  against  Prelacy, 

clann   for   themselves  the   credit  of  defending   spiritual  religion   against 

^formalism.'*     They  abound  in  ridicule   and   reprobation   of  the   theatrical 

performances  of  Puseyism,  and  the  absurd  pretensions  connected  with  them ; 

55 


442  I^tniTAN  PtJSEYISM. 

fiUcli  as  tKat  baptism  effects  regeneration :  that  the  eiicliarist  is  a  prmcipd 
Inedium  of  grace,  and  not  a  mere  non-essential  emblem;  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
Is  communicated  by  the  laying  on  of  the  bishop's  hands,  &c.  But  Ave  think 
it  would  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  a  vast  amount  of  superstition  about  the 
virtue  of  water  baptism,  infant  sprinkUng,  the  Lord's  supper,  and  the  laying 
on  of  hands,  not  a  whit  better  than  the  superstitions  of  the  Cathohcs  and 
Puseyites,  has  been  encouraged  among  Congregationalists  and  their  sister 
churches,  by  their  clergy,  and  exists  among  them  to  this  day.  The  mysteri- 
ous importance  which  is  attached  to  immersion,  by  Baptists  on  the  one  hand, 
and  to  infant  sprinkling,  by  Pedo-baptists  on  the  other,  is,  to  say  the  least, 
a  stock  on  which  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  may  be  easily  graf- 
ted. We  were  taught  by  Congregationalists,  in  our  younger  days,  to  look 
for  some  wonderful  communications  of  grace  in  the  ceremony  of  eating  bread 
and  drinking  wine,  and  were  tempted  sometimes  to  doubt  our  own  spirituality 
because  we  found  no  miraculous  power  in  those  elements.  Here  is  fit  soil, 
at  least,  for  the  hocus-pocus  of  transubstantiation.  When  a  minister  is  or- 
dained, the  clergy  lay  their  hands  on  him.  What  do  they  mean  by  it  ? 
Is  it  done  in  imitation  of  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church  ?  It  is  well 
known  that  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  that  churcn  was  not  a  mere  ceremony, 
but  actually  communicated  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  practice  then,  in  Congre- 
gational ordinations,  either  is  a  piece  of  pure  nonsense  without  scripture  foun- 
dation, or  it  signifies  that  divine  power  passes  from  the  ordainers  to  the 
ordained.  Taken  either  way,  it  smells  strongly  of  Puseyism.  It  is  well 
called  the  imposition— oi  hands.  So  Episcopal  sanctification  of  buildings, 
places,  vestments,  &c.,  has  its  counterpart  in  Congregational  dedications. 
And  in  short,  for  every  full  blown  mummery  of  the  Episcopal  and  Cathohc 
churches,  a  corresponding  germ  at  least,  may  be  found  in  Congregationahsm 
and  Presbyterianism. 

When  the  fathers  of  our  churches^ — such  men  as  Dr.  Woods,  Dr.  Hewitt, 
and  Dr.  Cox — are  called  from  time  to  time  to  mourn  over  the  lapse  of  their 
favorite,  w^oll-trained  sons  into  Prelacy,  have  they  not  reason  to  inquire 
whether  the  clerical  assumptions  and  formalisms  of  their  own  denominations 
have  not  sown  the  seeds  of  the  bitter  fruit  they  are  eating  ? 

The  point  where  Popery,  Prelacy,  and  the  dissenting  sects  all  fully  unite, 
is  in  certain  spiritual  principles,  back  of  all  forms.  Their  common  essence 
is  legality.  They  are  all  equally  ignorant  of  the  essential  distinction  between 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations ;  all  blind  to  the  spiritual  power  of 
Christ's  resurrection,  by  which  true  believers  are  emancipated  from  sin,  law, 
and  carnal  ordinances.  Having  no  idea  of  the  possibility  of  holiness  of  heart 
in  this  world,  they  are  all  obliged  to  provide  systems  of  carnal  nursing  for 
guilty  consciences.  Ceremonies  and  duty-doings  are  the  natural  substitutes 
for  grace.  Indulgences,  either  retail  as  in  the  Catholic  system,  or  wholesale, 
as  among  Protestants,  are  indispensable  in  all  systems  which  make  no  provis* 
ion  for  salvation  from  sin.  A  Levitical  priesthood  is  the  necessary  substitute 
for  the  Melchiscdec  order,  where  there  is  no  immediate  communication  with 
God.  In  a  word,  all  sin-allowing,  law-teaching  churches  are  of  necessity 
ispiritually  reducible  to  one  common  genus,  viz.,  that  of  Judaism.     Some  of 


UNITY  OP  THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD.  44S 

them  may  go  further  than  others  in  the  outward  development  of  their  legal 
tendencies,  but  they  are  all  one  at  the  root ;  and  all  will  put  forth,  either  in 
the  bud,  flower,  or  fruit,  the  same  formalisms  and  idolatries. 

So  long  as  nothing  but  Protestant  Judaism  is  arrayed  against  Popish,  and 
Puritan  Judaism  against  Prelatical,  no  rational  hope  of  overthrowing  the 
kingdom  of  formahsm  can  be  entertained.  If  the  Congregational  and  Pros* 
byterian  clergy  are,  as  they  suppose,  the  '  forlorn  hope'  of  religious  freedom 
and  spiritual  religion,  we  may  well  say — Woe  to  the  world. 

Yet  there  is  reason  to  hope  that  the  pressure  of  Prelacy  is  working  a  good 
change  in  the  Puritan  churches.  The  combativeness  which  the  arrogance 
and  formahsms  of  Episcopacy  excite,  reacts  upon  them  and  disposes  them  to 
lower  their  own  pretensions,  and  think  hghtly  of  their  own  ceremonies.  They 
are  Hghtening  their  ship  of  all  the  Puseyistic  lumber  they  can  spare.  No 
halfway  movement,  however,  will  save  them.  That  kind  of  reformation  was 
tried  in  the  first  rebelHon  against  Popery,  and  its  failure  is  now  abundantly 
manifest.  Congregationalism  and  Presbyterianism  '  must  he  horn  again. ^ 
The  change  from  Judaism  to  Christianity  is  not  a  mere  modification,— it  is 
a  radical  revolution.  Yet  the  war  with  Prelacy  is,  we  trust,  generating  a 
predisposition  to  that  revolution.  Its  tendency,  in  common  with  that  of  ma- 
ny  other  movements  of  the  age,  is  toward  freedom  from  old-world  puerilities, 
and  the  development  of  spiritualism.  It  is  a  premonitory  symptom  of  tho 
Second  Reformation. 


P 


§  64.    UNITY  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD. 


In  the  present  state  of  things,  unity  of  social  organization  is  violated  in 
four  ways.  We  have,  1,  the  state  as  a  whole,  separate  from  the  church ; 
2,  many  different  states  independent  of  each  other;  3,  many  diiferent 
churches  independent  of  each  other ;  and  4,  a  variety  of  benevolent  and 
reformatory  organizations  independent  of  both  church  and  state.  Each  of 
the  nations  is  a  kingdom  by  itself;  each  of  the  sects  is  a  kingdom  of  itself; 
and  every  branch  of  benevolent  eifort  and  reform  is  a  kingdom  by  itself. — 
Now  however  useful  or  necessary  these  fragmentary  organizations  may  be 
while  the  religious  and  political  world  is  without  form  and  void,  and  darkness 
is  upon  the  face  of  it,  we  are  certain  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  in  any 
of  them  ;  and  that  when  that  kingdom  comes,  a  principle  of  unity  will  appear 
which  will  draw  them  all  into  one  organization,  or  sweep  them  away  with  the 
besom  of  destruction. 

This  is  plainly  predicted  in  scripture,  at  least  so  far  as  the  separation  of 
church  and  state,  and  the  division  of  the  world  into  independent  nations, 
are  concerned.  The  word  of  prophecy  is,  that  when  the  carnal  principle  of 
unity  which  existed  more  or  less  in  the  series  of  Gentiles  monarchies  shall 
have  spent  itself,  and  the  political  world  shall  come  to  be  a  congeries  of  in- 


444  UNITY  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD. 

dependent  kingdoms,  (as  it  is  this  day,)  '  the  God  of  heaven  shall  set  up  a 
kingdom,  which  shall  never  be  destroyed  ;  and  it  shall  break  in  pieces  and 
consume  all  these  kingdoms,  and  it  shall  stand  for  ever.'  Dan.  2:  44.  The 
very  name  of  the  kingdom  here  predicted,  and  the  divinity  of  its  origin, 
prove  that  it  is  to  be  a  religious  kingdom,  i.  e,  a  church  in  the  proper  sense 
of  the  word  ;  and  this  church,  according  to  the  plain  terms  of  the  prophecy, 
is  to  break  in  pieces  all  the  political  governments  of  the  world,  and  take  their 
place.  In  other  words,  the  church,  instead  of  being  separate  from  the  state 
and  subordinate  to  it,  and  instead  of  being  joined  to  the  state,  is  to  be  the 
state  ;  and  this  Church-State  is  to  be  the  only  government  over  the  whole 
world. 

This  sweeps  away  two  of  the  disunities  mentioned  above — the  division  of 
the  church  and  state,  and  the  division  of  the  nations.  We  hardly  need 
present  any  separate  proof  in  regard  to  the  other  two — the  division  of  the 
church  into  sects,  and  the  independency  of  benevolent  and  reformatory 
organizations.  It  is  eminently  ridiculous  to  suppose  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
-will  be  composed  of  a  multitude  of  denominations,  differing  in  doctrine,  and 
antagonistical  in  action, — that  Christ  will  break  in  pieces  the  nations  and  re- 
duce the  political  world  to  unity,  and  yet  consent  to  leave  the  rehgious  world 
in  its  present  fragmentary  state.  The  prediction  is  not  that  God  will  set  up 
a  score  or  two  of  separate  and  hostile  rehgious  kingdoms,  which  shall  break 
in  pieces  and  supersede  the  nations ;  but  that  he  will  '  set  up  A  kingdom' — • 
one  organization,  that  shall  take  the  place  of  all  its  predecessors,  of  course 
rehgious  as  well  as  political.  And  it  is  equally  ridiculous  to  suppose  that 
this  kingdom  will  leave  its  own  proper  work  of  evangelizing  and  reforming 
the  world  to  be  performed  by  independent  Bible  Societies,  Missionary  Boards, 
and  Temperance  Unions. 

The  great  disadvantage  which  attends  the  present  plurality  of  independent 
organizations,  is  the  distraction  of  heart  which  it  produces.  A  man  wishes  to 
be  a  patriot,  and  at  the  same  time  a  Christian.  This  might  be,  if  the  gov- 
ernment of  his  country  and  the  church  of  God  were  one,  or  if  one  of  them 
were  a  subordinate  branch  of  the  other.  But  the  government  of  his  country 
is  a  kingdom  by  itself,  and  the  church  to  which  he  belongs  is  a  kingdom  by 
itself.  Christ  says  truly,  that '  no  man  can  serve  two  masters  ;  for  either  he 
will  hate  the  one  and  love  the  other,  or  else  he  will  hold  to  the  one  and  de- 
spise the  other.^  A  devoted  allegiance  to  two  or  more  independent  kingdoms 
is  impossible.  The  man  must  choose  between  his  country  and  his  church. 
If  he  will  be  a  devoted  patriot,  he  must  be  an  indifferent  churchman.  If  he 
will  hold  to  his  church,  he  must  despise  his  country.  Or  in  the  vain  struggle 
to  serve  both  masters,  he  will  be  a  hearty  and  faithful  servant  of  neither. 

The  people  of  Ireland  are  experiencing  the  miseries  of  a  divided  allegiance. 
They  are  politically  the  subjects  of  the  crown  of  England,  and  spiritually  the 
subjects  of  the  See  of  Rome.  Just  in  proportion  as  they  are  religious,  they 
must  be  seditious.  The  same  is  true,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  of  Roman 
Catholics  in  all  countries  that  are  politically  independent  of  the  Pope.  And 
in  fact,  the  same  is  true  of  religionists  of  every  name,  who  belong  to  churches 
which  are  separate  from  the  civil  governments  under  which  they  live.    Men 


UNITY  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD.  445 

whose  religion  is  a  mere  formal  Sunday  affair,  may  be  liege  subjects  of  the 
powers  that  be  ;  but  whoever  loves  his  religion  and  his  church  with  supreme 
devotion,  has  necessarily  more  or  less  treason  against  his  country  in  his  heart. 
Observation  will  attest  that  our  most  devoted  patriots  are  lukewarm  religion- 
ists, and  our  most  devoted  religionists  are  lukewarm  patriots.  This  is  the 
necessary  result  of  the  position  in  which  the  separation  of  church  and  state 
places  men,  even  where  the  relations  of  church  and  state  are  not  unfriendly. 

Again,  the  division  of  the  world  into  independent  nations,  makes  it  impos- 
sible for  a  man  to  be  a  patriot  and  a  cosmopolite  at  the  same  time.  Loyalty 
and  universal  philanthropy  are  incompatible,  because  the  policy  of  each  insu- 
lated kingdom  is  inevitably  hostile  to  the  interests  of  the  world  at  large.  So 
the  division  of  the  religious  world  into  sects  necessarily  raises  a  competition 
in  each  man's  heart  between  the  claims  of  the  church  universal  and  those  of 
the  church  to  which  he  belongs.  If  he  is  a  warm  Presbyterian  or  Methodist, 
he  must  be  indifferent  or  hostile  to  the  rest  of  Christendom.  If  his  heart 
turns  toward  the  whole  body  of  believers,  he  loses  his  interest  in  his  own 
church,  and  very  probably  will  be  cast  out  of  it  as  a  renegade. 

The  various  benevolent  and  reformatory  associations  of  modern  times,  have 
greatly  multipUed  the  distractions  of  the  religious  world.  The  leading  chur- 
ches of  this  countny  committed  a  suicidal  act  Avhen  they  set  the  example,  in 
the  formation  of  the  Bible  and  Missionary  Societies,  of  instituting  semi-reli- 
gious associations  separate  from  the  regular  church  organizations.  That 
example  has  been  followed  till  now  almost  every  department  of  moral  enter- 
prise has  an  organization  of  its  own,  and  the  proper  business  of  the  churches 
is  nearly  all  taken  out  of  their  hands.  And  these  moral  organizations  are 
not  merely  independent  of  the  churches,  but  more  or  less  hostile  to  them. 
Of  course  all  who  are  members  of  churches,  and  at  the  same  time  adherents 
of  the  societies,  are  in  a  '  strait  betwixt  two.'  Their  rehgion  draws  them  one 
way,  and  their  zeal  for  moral  enterprises  another.  How  many  have  been 
seduced  from  their  church-allegiance  by  their  attachment  to  the  Temperance 
and  Antislavery  associations !  And  then  even  if  a  man's  heart  is  not  divided 
between  his  church  and  the  reforms — if  he  has  gone  quite  over  to  the  new 
societies,  he  is  still  distracted  by  the  multiplicity  of  independent  enterprises 
which  claim  his  devotion.  Temperance,  Moral  Reform,  Antislavery,  Non- 
resistance — each  a  kingdom  of  itself — demand  his  allegiance.  He  has  but 
one  heart,  and  he  must  either  give  it  to  one  of  them  and  become  ^  a  man  of 
one  idea,'  or  coquet  with  them  all. 

A  true  man  would  wish  to  be  a  loyal  servant  of  all  good  interests — to  be  at 
the  same  time  a  Christian,  a  patriot,  and  a  friend  of  every  kind  of  reform. 
And  this  he  might  be,  if  religion,  politics  and  morality,  were  embodied  in 
one  organization.  But  we  know  nothing  more  hopeless  and  heart-distracting 
than  to  attempt,  in  the  present  state  of  the  w^orld,  to  gratify  a  propensity  to 
universal  philanthropy,  by  surrendering  one's  self  to  the  various  organizations 
which  occupy  the  field  of  human  interests.  Whoever  makes  this  attempt  wiil 
surely  experience  the  worst  woes  of  polygamy.  He  will  find  himself  married 
to  a  dozen  or  more  of  independent  and  quarreling  wives.  The  most  he  can 
do,  will  be  to  dally  with  them  all.     He  can  be  a  husband  to  none. 


446  PEACE     PRINCIPLES. 

This  state  of  things  cannot  last  for  ever.  Whether  we  look  at  prophecy, 
or  the  nature  of  the  case  and  the  signs  of  the  times,  we  see  clearly  that  God 
is  coming  into  the  field  ;  and  that  when  he  comes,  '  all  things,  both  which  are 
in  heaven  and  which  are  on  earth,  will  be  gathered  together  in  one,'  or,  as  it 
is  in  the  original,  '  will  be  reduced  under  one  head.''  Eph.  1:  10.  The  God 
of  heaven  will  set  up  a  kingdom  which  will  comprehend  and  unite  all  the  in- 
terests which  are  now  under  the  supervision  of  civil  governments,  churches, 
reform  societies,  communities,  &c.  We  put  it  to  the  consciences  of  those  who 
are  waiting  for  that  kingdom,  whether,  in  going  out  of  the  present  state  of 
things  to  meet  its  coming,  their  first  step  is  not  to  withdraw,  and  stand  aloof 
from  all  the  associations,  new  and  old,  which  occupy  its  destined  place  ?  It 
is  not  to  be  hoped  with  reason,  that  any  of  the  existing  organizations  will  grow 
to  be  the  kingdom  of  God.  As  well  might  we  expect  that  a  bramble  will 
grow  to  be  an  oak.  The  initial  principle  of  all-comprehensive  unity  which  we 
have  spoken  of,  is  not  in  them,  and  never  will  grow  out  of  them.  Let  us 
then  leave  them,  and,  standing  alone  if  need  be,  but  in  a  readiness  for  co- 
operation with  God  and  man  at  the  appointed  time,  wait  patiently  for  the  uni- 
versal, everlasting  kingdom.  '  Say  ye  not,  A  confederacj^  to  all  them  to 
whom  this  people  shall  say,  A  confederacy.''  All  confederacies  but  one  are 
destined  to  extinction  ;  and  that  one  is  not  yet  manifested  in  this  world.  Let 
us  resolve  to  join  that  confederacy  or  none. 


§  Q5.    PEACE  PRINCIPLES. 

The  true  scriptural  peace-principle  is,  not  that  punishment  of  wrong  doing 
is  in  itself  unjustifiable,  but  that  it  is  the  proper  office  of  God,  as  supreme 
governor,  to  inflict  such  punishment ;  and  that  it  is  wrong  for  individuals  to 
take  the  law  into  their  own  hands.  'Avenge  not  yourselves,  but  rather  give 
place  unto  wrath  ;  for  it  is  written.  Vengeance  is  mine:  I  will  repag,  saith 
the  Lord.''  Rom.  12:  19.  The  same  Jesus  that  directed  his  disciples,  as  in- 
dividuals, to  resist  not  evil,  to  bless  their  enemies,  and  do  good  to  their  per- 
secutors, also  assured  them  that  God  their  king  would  'avenge  them  speedily.' 
Luke  18:  8.  He  who  suffered  himself  to  be  '  led  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,' 
that  he  might  fulfill  all  righteousness  as  an  individual  and  a  subject,  also  pre- 
dicted to  his  oppressors,  in  the  midst  of  their  cruelty  and  of  his  submission, 
that  the  time  was  coming  when  he  would  be  seen  '  sitting  at  the  right  hand 
of  power '  as  their  king  and  judge,  and  when  they  would  call  on  the  rocks 
and  mountains  to  hide  them  from  his  wrath.  Matt.  26:  64 ;  Luke  23:  30. — 
The  non-resistance  which  was  inculcated  on  the  primitive  church  by  the  apos- 
tles, was  constantly  mingled  with  promises  of  the  speedy  advent  of  a  kingdom 
in  which  '  every  man  should  be  rewarded  according  to  his  works' — the  wick- 
ed with  destruction,  as  well  as  the  righteous  with  eternal  life.  2  Thess.  1: 
6—0. 


PEACE     PRINCIPLES.  447 

The  appropriate  effect  of  peace  principles  thus  combined  with  anticipations 
of  ultimate  and  legitimate  vengeance,  is  not  to  eradicate  from  the  human 
mind  the  natural  sentiments  of  anger  against  wrong  doing,  and  desire  of 
retribution,  but  to  subject  them  to  the  control  of  God-like  patience,  and  turn 
them  from  the  lawlessness  of  individual  violence,  into  the  safe  channel  of  gov- 
ernmental authority.  Unresisting  submission  to  injury  under  the  influence 
of  these  principles,  is  a  manifestation  not  of  that  supine  indifference  to  wTong, 
and  morbid  undiscriminating  good  nature,  which  many  seem  ambitious  to  at- 
tain, but  of  courageous  confidence  in  the  supremacy  and  justice  of  God's  gov- 
ernment, and  of  that  self-controlling  wisdom  in  resentment,  which  patiently 
seeks  the  award  of  justice  to  its  enemies  in  the  surest  and  most  effectual  w^ay. 
It  is  not  the  object  of  the  non-resistance  of  the  Bible  to  stifle  the  salutary 
energy  of  destructiveness,  but  to  curb  its  action  till  long-suffering  mercy  has 
finished  its  effort,  and  then  give  it  scope  and  answer  its  demands  in  the  most 
satisfactory  manner,  by  engaging  the  majest}^  of  government  in  its  redress. 

The  simple  principle  that  the  power  of  making  war  and  inflicting  punish- 
ment belongs  to  government  and  not  to  individuals,  that  vengeance  in  itself 
is  not  wrong,  but  that  it  is  wrong  when  it  emanates  from  private  resentment, 
and  right  when  it  emanates  from  the  authority  of  public  justice,  will  be  found 
a  safe  guide  through  all  the  difficulties  and  apparent  contradictions  of  Bible 
morality  in  relation  to  resistance  and  non-resistance  of  enemies. 

This  principle,  in  the  first  place,  places  all  men  under  the  general  rule  of 
total  abstinence  from  war,  either  individual  or  national,  offensive  or  defensive. 
Assuming  that  men,  either  as  individuals  or  nations,  are  merely  subjects  of 
the  divine  government,  not  clothed  with  official  authority,  it  is  plainly  reason- 
able that  they  should  abstain  from  any  violent  private  assertion  of  their  own 
rights,  and  rely  on  the  justice  and  omnipotence  of  the  government  that  is 
over  them  for  protection.  This  is  nothing  more  than  human  governments 
require  of  their  subjects,  with  the  consent  and  obedience  of  all  good  citizens. 
To  one  who  practically  believes  there  is  a  Theocratic  government  over  the 
world,  the  precepts,  •  resist  not  evil,'  avenge  not  yourselves,'  &c.,  addressed 
to  men  as  subjects  of  that  government,  are  as  rational  as  the  municipal  reg- 
ulations of  civilized  communities  which  forbid  duelling,  private  brawls,  and 
illegal  assaults  on  persons  or  property. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  principle,  as  it  allows  the  supreme  government  to 
make  war  and  inflict  punishment,  obviously  does  not  preclude  it  from  em- 
ploying human  agents  in  these  operations.  Men  may  lawfully  do  as  officers 
and  executioners,  what  they  may  not  do  as  private  citizens.  As  the  general 
truth  however  is,  that  men  are  private  citizens,  and  the  possession  of  official 
authority  is  the  exception,  it  is  required  that  the  exception  should  be  proved 
and  a  divine  commission  produced,  whenever  men  claim  exemption  from 
the  general  command  to  abstain  from  violence.  The  exception  was  proved — 
a  divine  commission  w^as  produced  in  the  sight  of  the  whole  world  when  Mo- 
ses and  Joshua,  at  the  head  of  the  armies  of  Israel,  made  war  on  the  nations 
of  Canaan.  We  justify  that  war  therefore,  in  perfect  consistency  with  i\iQ 
peace-principles  of  the  New  Testament,  and  without  resorting  to  any  obscure- 
theory  of  change  of  dispensation,  or  leaving  any  ground  of  imputing  mutable 


448  PEACE     PRINCIPLES. 

morality  or  policy  to  tlie  divine  government.  The  legitimacy  of  that  war 
stands  on  the  same  basis  as  the  legitimacy  of  the  war  which  God  will  make 
on  the  wicked  at  the  final  judgment.  It  was  a  war  carried  on  by  the  supreme 
government,  in  which  men  were  authorized  agents. 

The  fact  that  a  judgment  is  predicted,  and  that  God,  throughout  the  Bible, 
claims  the  right  of  inflicting  final  punishment  on  the  incorrigible,  proves  that 
the  peace-principles  of  the  New  Testament  announced  no  radical  change  in 
the  constitutional  powers  and  poHcy  of  God's  empire,  and  that  they  appertain 
only  to  the  limited  period  appropriated  to  the  efforts  of  mercy.  Moreover, 
the  fact  that  angels,  and  even  men,  according  to  the  predictions  of  scripture, 
are  to  be  employed  as  judges  and  executioners  in  the  final  judgment,  proves 
that  those  principles  are  only  regulations  of  private  conduct,  and  do  not  ex- 
clude created  beings  from  exercising,  as  public  officers,  the  punitive  functions 
of  the  supreme  government. 

With  these  views,  we  have  no  occasion  to  make  the  distinction  which  is 
sometimes  made,  between  offensive  and  defensive  wars.  The  supreme  au- 
thority of  the  universe  has  as  good  right  to  make  offensive  as  defensive  war ; 
and  men  have  as  good  right  to  serve  him  in  the  one  as  in  the  other.  The 
wars  of  Moses  w^ere  offensive.  Yet  according  to  our  previous  reasoning,  we 
justify  both  the  divine  government  that  directed  them,  and  the  human  agents 
that  carried  them  on.  And  on  the  other  hand,  men  have  no  more  right  to 
make  defensive  than  offensive  war,  without  divine  authority.  The  peace 
precepts  of  the  New  Testament  are  specially  and  almost  exclusively  directed 
against  defensive  war.  '  If  a  man  smite  thee  on  the  right  cheek,  turn  to 
him  the  other  also.' 

Nor  have  we  occasion  to  distinguish,  so  far  as  morality  is  concerned^  be- 
tween the  use  of  spiritual  and  carnal  weapons.  This  distinction,  though  much 
insisted  upon  by  modern  non-resistants,  is  evidently  frivolous ;  since  God, 
from  whom  alone  men  derive  the  right  to  make  war  in  any  way,  has  as  good 
right  to  make  war  with  physical  as  with  spiritual  agencies.  He  did  employ 
physical  agencies  in  the  wars  of  Moses,  and  has  as  good  right  to  do  so  now 
as  he  had  then.  If  this  example  is  objected  to,  as  belonging  to  an  extinct 
dispensation,  we  may  refer  to  the  example  of  Christ  himself,  who  used  a 
'  scourge  of  sm^ll  cords,'  in  driving  the  buyers  and  sellers  from  the  temple. 
John  2:  15.  Small  as  the  instance  may  seem,  it  is  enough  to  show  that 
Christ  had  no  scruples,  on  the  score  of  morality,  in  respect  either  to  making 
offensive  war,  or  to  the  use  of  material  implements.  Paul  does  indeed  speak 
disparagingly  of  carnal  Aveapons ;  (2  Cor.  10:  4 ;)  but  evidently  not  with 
reference  to  the  morality  of  using  them.  He  preferred  spiritual  agencies  to 
carnal,  not  because  it  is  necessarily  wrong  to  use  the  latter,  but  because  the 
former  are  '  mighty  through  Gfod.^  As  fire-arms  are  more  effectual  than 
bows  and  arrows,  so  the  spiritual  sword  which  is  the  word  of  God,  is  mightier 
for  the  purposes  which  Paul  had  in  view,  than  any  material  instruments  of 
war.  He  used  the  word  carnal  in  other  instances  in  a  way  that  shows  there 
is  no  moral  evil  necessarily  included  in  its  meaning ;  (e.  g.  Rom.  15:  27  ; 
<  If  the  Gentiles  have  been  made  partakers  of  their  spiritual  things,  their  duty 
is  also  to  minister  unto  them  in  carnal  things.'    See  also  ICor.  9;  11.)     It 


PEACE     PRINCIPLES.  '  449 

is  no  more  necessarily  immoral  to  use  carnal  weapons  than  to  use  carnal  food 
or  carnal  money.  Besides,  if  Paul  did  not  use  carnal  weapons,  he  did  use 
spiritual  weapons  in  such  a  Avay,  in  one  instance  at  least,  as  to  inflict  carnal 
injury ;  to  wit,  when  he  sent  blindness  on  Elymas  the  sorcerer.  Acts  13: 11. 
In  like  manner  Peter,  by  the  sword  of  the  word  inflicted  capital  punishment 
on  Ananias  and  Sapphira.  However  unwise  it  may  be  ordinarily  for  believ- 
ers to  resort  to  physical  violence,  it  is  plain  that  any  attempt  to  make  a 
moral  distinction  between  carnal  and  spiritual  weapons,  or  between  inflictions 
on  the  body  and  those  on  the  soul,  is  frivolous,  simply  because  God  only  can 
give  right  to  use  any  kind  of  weapons,  or  inflict  any  kind  of  injury ;  and  he 
as  the  creator  and  owner  of  heaven  and  earth,  of  body  and  soul,  has  as  per- 
fect right  to  use  and  to  direct  others  to  use  either  material  or  spiritual  imple- 
ments, as  he  has  to  '  destroy  both  body  and  soul  in  hell.' 

Our  principle  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  all  the  ordinary  wai-s  betweeik 
the  nations  of  the  world,  are  no  better  than  lawless  and  murderous  private  ^ 
brawls.  The  parties  rarely  pretend,  and  never  prove,  that  they  act  as  oflS- 
cial  servants  of  the  divine  government.  They  fight  confessedly,  not  by  order 
of  the  supreme  authority,  and  for  the  maintenance  of  universal  justice,  but  on 
their  own  responsibility,  and  for  private  purposes,  either  of  national  aggran- 
dizement or  defense.  Such  fighting,  when  it  occurs  between  individuals  or 
clans,  under  ordinary  civil  governments,  is  called  a  riot.  The  parties  are 
liable  to  prosecution  for  breach  of  the  peace,  and  contempt  of  the  municipal 
authorities.  With  equal  reason  a  brawl  between  two  nations  should  be  regar- 
ded as  a  riot,  breach  of  the  peace,  and  contempt  of  the  authority  of  God.  It 
implies  that  there  is  on  both  sides  either  no  cognizance  of  the  general  govern- 
ment which  God  has  established  over  the  woiTd,  or  no  loyalty  to  it,  and  no 
confidence  in  its  power  and  justice>  The  fact  that  nations  deem  it  necessary 
to  settle  their  diiferences,  like  savages,  by  mutual  slaughter,  evinces  that  the 
w^orld,  as  a  whole,  is,  in  its  own  view.  2}ractically  in  a  state  of  savage  anarchy.. 
While  individuals  and  towns  and  provinces  have  governments  over  them  to 
which  they  can  look  for  civilized  justice,  the  nations  of  the  w^orld,  recognizing 
no  common  arbiter,  are  in  as  barbarous  condition  as  were  the  independent 
robber  barons  of  feudal  times,  whose  only  law  was  *  the  law  of  the  strongest,* 
and  whose  only  check  was  their  fear  of  each  other.  '  The  law  of  nations,' 
as  it  is  called,  never  can  redeem  the  world  from  this  reproach,  since  that 
code,  however  just  may  be  its  precepts,  has  no  substantial  penalty  or  executor, 
and  in  practice  has  never  been  found  an  efieetual  barrier  against  the  lawless- 
ness of  powerful  and  angry  nations.  ^ 

In  seeking  a  cure  for  the  evils  of  ordinary  war,  it  is  important  that  we 
discern  clearly  and  exactly  where  the  essence  of  its  wrongfulness  lies.  Guided 
by  the  principles  which  have  been  discussed,  we  say  that  the  wrong  lies,  not 
in  the  fact  of  its  being,  in  any  particular  case,  offensive  instead  of  defensive 
war — not  in  its  employment  of  carnal  instead  of  spiritual  weapons — not  in  its 
assailing  the  body,  rather  than  the  mind — not  in  the  injustice  of  its  object, 
(for  in  many  cases  nations  have  good  ground  of  hostility,  and  good  claim  of 
redress,) — not  in  the  suffering  w^hich  it  produces,  (for  suffering  may  be  de- 
served as  in  the  case  of  the  Canaanites,  and  as  at  the  day  of  judgment,) —     ^ 


4.M  PEACE    PniNCIPLES. 

^  in  a  word,  not  in  any  of  the  details  of  its  execution,  but  in  the  tNBELlEy 
back  of  it  which  bhnds  the  whole  world  to  the  reality  and  reliableness  of  the 
government  of  God,  and  which  thus  leaves  to  nations  no  resource  for  defense, 
but  private  and  of  course  illegitimate  war.  If  there  were  no  God,  no  com- 
mon arbiter,  no  supreme  court  of  appeal  for  the  nations,  many  of  the  wars- 
that  have  been  made  from  time  to  time,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  would  be  justi- 
fiable. For  instance,  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  object  which  our  fathers 
sought  and  won  in  the  Revolution,  was  a  good  one,  and  great  enough  to 
warrant  the  sacrifices  which  were  made  for  it.  Keither  do  we  object  to  its 
physical  nature.  The  fault  we  find  with  it  is,  that  it  was  an  illegitimate  war, 
undertaken  on  human  responsibility,  unauthorized  by  any  provable  order  ot 
the  divine  government.  In  view  however  of  the  universal  and  long-settled 
notions  and  habits  of  the  world  in  regard  to  voluntary  war,  we  are  not  bound 
to  press  our  charge  against  such  wars  as  that  of  the  Revolution  very  rigor' 
ously.  '  The  days  of  this  ignorance  God  winked  at.'  Paul  verily  thought 
he  did  God  service  in  persecuting  the  church,  and  though  he  was  mistaken, 
yet  he  found  mercy  because  he  did  it  '  ignorantly  in  unbeUef.'  On  this 
principle  we  are  at  liberty  and  are  disposed  to  deal  charitably  with  the  names 
of  our  fathers,  and  of  all  in  every  age  who  have  fought  for  what  they  believed 
to  be  the  rights  of  man.  Yet  the  time  must  come  when  God  will  '  call  on 
all  men  every  where  to  repent'  of  the  deeds  done  in  times  of  ignorance  ;  and 
when  that  time  comes  it  will  be  found  that  the  essence  of  the  criminality  of 
the  wars  in  which  the  nations  have  been  engaged,  lies  in  the  unbehef  and 
consequent  anarchy  of  the  world,  and  that  all  wars,  whether  for  good  or  evil 
purposes,  that  have  been  carried  on  under  the  shroud  of  that  unbelief  and 

^   anarchy,  have  shared  in  that  criminality. 

''  The  conclusion  from  these  views  is,  that  we  are  to  look  for  the  termination 
of  the  wars  of  the  world,  not  to  a  voluntary  congress  and  agreement  of  nations, 
nor  to  the  labors  of  Quakers,  peace  societies,  and  non-resistants,-— so  long  as 
their  efforts  are  directed  mainly  to  the  object  of  proclaiming  the  horrors  of 
war  and  the  immorality  of  using  carnal  weapons,— but  to  the  promulgation 
of  that  gospel  which  brings  man  nigh  to  God,  and  lifts  him  out  of  the  anarchy 
of  unbelief  into  the  light  and  order  of  the  eternal  government.     When  the 

\  nations  shall  feel  the  pressure,  and  rely  on  the  protection,  of  a  strong  general 
government,  such  as  already  exists  in  the  upper  regions  of  the  spiritual  world, 
and  is  destined,  in  spite  of  the  unbehef  of  men  and  enmity  of  devils,  to  '  come 
down  from  God  out  of  heaven,'  they  will  cease  from  war  for  the  same  reason 
as  that  by  which  individuals  are  deterred  from  murderous  private  brawls,  un- 
der the  pressure  and  protection  of  ordinary  civil  governments.     The  declar- 

y  ation — '  Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord,'  will  then  be  effec- 
tual, as  a  threat  to  the  strong,  and  as  a  promise  to  the  weak.  God  will  take 
his  stand  as  an  armed  mediator  between  the  jarring  kingdoms,  and  the  whole 
earth  will  be  quiet  before  him.  Then  will  appear  the  true  '  congress  of 
nations'  described  in  the  glorious  words  of  Isaiah :— '  The  mountain  of  the 
Lord's  house  shall  he  established  in  the  top  of  the  mountains^  and  shall  he 
exalted  above  the  lulls  ;  and  all  nations  shall  fioiv  unto  it.  And  manypeo- 
^le  shall  go  and  say^  Comeyey  and  let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord, 


PRIMARY   REFORM.  451 

t&  the  home  of  the  God  of  Jacob  ;  and  he  will  teach  us  of  Ms  wai/s,  and  we 
will  walk  in  his  paths :  for  out  of  Zlon  shall  go  forth  the  law^  and  the  word 
of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem.  And  he  shall  judge  among  the  nations^  and 
shall  rebuke  many  ])^ople  ;  and  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  ploivshares : 
and  their  spears  into  p>runing-hooks :  nation  shall  not  lift  up  sivord  against 
nation y  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more.^ 


§  ^^,    THE  PRIMARY  REFORM. 

*  Out  of  the  heart  of  men,  proceed  evil  thoughts,  adulteries,  fornications,  ^^ 
murders,  thefts,  covetousiiess,  wickedness,  deceit,  lasciviousness,  an  evil  eye, 
blasphemy,  pride,  foolishness.'  Mark  7:  21,  22.  The  list  of  evils  here  men- 
tioned, embraces  directly  or  indirectly  all  the  abominations  against  which  the 
various  reform  societies  are  laboring.  As  these  evils  have  their  common 
centre  in  the  heart,  it  is  manifest  that  the  efforts  of  all  classes  of  reformers 
will  be  thoroughly  successful  only  when  they  shall  be  directed  effectually 
toward  that  centre.  The  reform  of  the  heart  must  precede  all  sound  reforms 
of  externals.  It  follows  then  that  among  all  the  moral  enterprises  of  the  day, 
that  cause  which  aims  directly  at  the  renovation  of  the  heart,  should  be  the 
centre  around  which  all  specific  reforms  should  range  themselves,  and  to  the 
furtherance  of  which  all  their  forces  should  converge.  We  submit  it  to  the 
candor  of  all  thinking  laborers  in  the  field  of  philanthropy,  whether  the  gos- 
pel of  salvation  from  sin  is  not  the  true  agency  of  heart  reform ;  and  whether 
it  ought  not  therefore  to  be  acknowledged  and  sustained  by  Temperance  men, 
Abolitionists,  Moral  Reformers,  Peace-men,  Physioligists,  Associationists,  and 
all  other  combatants  of  specific  evils,  as  the  central  and  ascendant  cause. 

It  is  manifest  that  Temperance  can  never  win  a  complete  and  permanent 
victory  in  the  present  state  of  human  nature.  If  it  gains  '  three  feet  upward 
every  day,'  it  shps  back  at  least  '  two  feet  every  night.'  MiUions  sign  the 
pledge,  but  hardly  thousands  or  even  hundreds  keep  it.  Again  and  again 
have  the  zealous  Temperance  men  in  all  our  towns  been  driven  to  the  secret 
conviction,  if  not  the  open  acknowledgment,  that  an  Anti-lying  Society  is 
needed  as  the  antecedent  and  basis  of  the  Temperance  Society.  The  unre- 
generate  heart  is  in  very  deed,  '  deceitful  above  all  things  and  desperately 
wicked.'  How  can  the  fidehty  and  truthfulness  necessary  to  the  efficacy  of 
the  Temperance  pledge,  be  expected  from  it  ?  Popular  religion  has  no  pow- 
er to  mend  the  case,  for  it  declares  that  all  hearts,  regenerate  and  unregen^ 
erate,  are  '  deceitful  above  all  things  and  desperately  wicked  ;'  and  there  it 
leaves  us,  neither  presenting  or  allowing  any  hope  of  better  hearts  ^  in  this 
world.  The  7th  chapter  of  Romans  is  the  only  standard  of  experience  licensed 
by  the  clergy ;  and  that  is  the  very  standard  of  drunkards  and  pledge- 
breakers.     We  say  thou  with  all  assurance,  that  the  Temperance  cause  hka 


452 


PRIMARY   REFORM. 


no  permanent  vitality,  and,  so  lon^  as  moral  fidelity  shall  be  essential  to  its 
success,  never  can  have,  until  an  effectual  medicine  shall  be  found  for  the 
diseased  hearts  of  the  people  ;  and  this  medicine  can  only  be  found  in  that 
gospel  which  substitutes  for  the  moral  impotence  of  the  7th  of  Romans,  sal- 
vation from  all  sin,  now  and  forever. 

The  same  deficiency  of  moral  basis  Is  observable  in  the  working  of  all 
those  reforms  which,  like  Temperance,  have  for  their  object  the  abolition  of 
personal  vices.  The  abandonment  of  false  dietetic  habits,  lasciviousness, 
and  all  other  forms  of  sensuality,  requires  an  energy  of  will  which  the  mass 
of  the  people  have  not,  and  never  will  have,  under  the  7th-of-Romans  ad- 
ministration. Moral  reformers  and  physiologists  may  run  to  and  fro,  and 
hioivledge  of  the  '  natural  laws'  may  be  increased  ad  infinitum^  and  still 
there  will  be  no  radical  and  lasting  reform — nothing  but  the  fitful  and  back- 
sliding righteousness  of  the  revival  system,  till  men  get  power  to  will 
healthily  as  well  as  to  see  clearly.  That  power  belongs  only  to  a  sound  heart; 
and  soundness  of  heart  comes  only  by  that  grace  which  saves  from  all  sin. 

So  the  social  reforms,  of  which  abolitionism  is  the  most  prominent  repre- 
sentative, sadly  need  soundness  of  heart  to  work  ivith,  and  to  work  upon. 
We  fully  believe  that  the  mass  of  the  people  in  this  country  are  convinced 
that  American  slavery  is  a  sin  against  God  and  man.  '  But  (says  a  church- 
trained  conscience)  what  then  ?  Sin  is  not  a  very  dreadful  affair.  Every 
body  sins.  The  church  and  clergy  sin.  The  best  of  men  sin  in  thought, 
word  and  deed,  continually.  Is  sin  to  be  turned  out  of  the  world  ?  Certainly 
not  till  it  is  turned  out  of  the  pulpit,  the  church,  and  other  respectable  places. 
It  is  as  much  the  privilege  of  nations  to  sin,  as  of  individuals — and  more,  if 
any  thing.'  What  does  it  avail  to  expound  the  wrongfulness  of  slavery  to 
consciences  that  think  in  this  way,  and  to  wills  that  are  paralized  by  such 
thinking  ?  Let  it  be  understood  that  sin  is  to  be  actually  turned  out  of  the 
world, — and  let  aboHtionists  begin  the  business  in  themselves  and  work  at  it 
till  they  have  established  in  the  heart  of  the  nation  a  new  moral  standard,  by 
which  all  sin  shall  be  branded  with  infamy  and  set  apart  for  the  curse  of 
heaven,  and  slavery  will  soon  be  at  the  mercy  of  their  arrows,  stripped  of  its 
harness. 

The  false  religions  of  the  country  frustrate  abolitionism  not  only  by  filling 
the  spiritual  atmosphere  with  the  smoke  of  the  7th  chapter  of  Romans,  but 
by  direct  opposition.  Tlie  abolitionists  say  themselves  that  the  churches  are 
the  chief  bulwarks  of  slavery — the  strongest  barrier  which  their  cause  has  to 
encounter.  To  them  therefore  the  most  vital  question  is,  How  are  the 
churches  to  be  overthrown  ?  We  answer  confidently, — not  by  mere  direct 
competition  or  assault,  but  by  bringing  forth  the  true  religion  against  them. 
The  religious  department  of  human  nature  is  the  very  '  sanctuary  of  strength.' 
The  instincts  of  men  demand  a  religion  with  more  energy  than  they  demand 
any  thing  else.  Mere  moral  and  benevolent  enterprises  can  never  satisfy 
this  demand;  and  therefore  they  can  never  compete  successfully  with  the  reli- 
gious systems  which  have  possession  of  the  market.  When  abolitionists  make 
a  direct  issue  with  the  churches,  and  the  abstract  question  whether  philan- 
thropy or  religion  should  have  the  precedence,  is  presented  to  the  people,  the 


PRIMARY   REFORM. 


f  -*.     453 


cliurclies  have  the  advantage,  because  all  true  instinct  decides  that  they  are 
in  the  light.  Religion  is  rightfully  the  centre,  and  not  the  satellite  of  phi- 
lanthropy. '  The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  hefjinning  oi  wisdom.'  Love  is  the 
child  of  faith.  Veneration  is  in  truth,  as  it  is  in  the  brain,  higher  than  benev- 
olence. So  the  mere  pulling-down  system  will  never  avail  against  the  churches. 
Men  will  instinctively,  and  we  might  say  reasonably,  cling  to  a  very  corrupt 
religion,  rather  than  have  no  religion  at  all.  The  true  policy  then,  as  well 
as  the  duty  of  abolitionists,  is  to  arm  themselves  for  conflict  with  the  churches, 
by  receiving  true  religion  to  their  hearts  and  giving  it  the  avowed  ascendan- 
cy over  all  their  movements.  Then  the  issue  will  be,  not  between  false  reli- 
gion and  a  secondary  enterprise  of  benevolence  or  no  religion  at  all,  but  be- 
tween false  religion  and  true  religion.  Let  the  gospel  of  holiness,  with  all 
its  Bible-armor,  be  brought  into  the  field  to  lead  the  van  of  the  anti-slavery 
host,  and  their  lingering  contest  with  the  churches  will  soon  be  decided. 

It  is  possible  that  slavery  will  soon  be  overthown  in  this  country, — but  not 
by  mo7'al  influences.  Political  jealousy  is  eyeing  it  fiercely,  and  meditating 
its  destruction.  If  it  perishes  by  the  stroke  of  political  and  physical  power, 
what  real  gain,  we  may  ask,  will  accrue  to  philanthropy  ?  We  will  say  no- 
thing about  the  possible  convulsions  and  horrors  of  the  catastrophe ;  but  if 
slavery's  fountain,  the  selfish  heart,  is  not  changed,  not  a  tittle  of  the  inner 
store  of  human  cruelty  will  be  annihilated.  Oppression  in  some  other  form, 
equivalent  to  slavery,  will  take  its  place.  So  long  as  the  issues  of  the  world's 
heart  are  '  murder,  theft,  covetousness,'  the  strong  will  surely  enslave  the 
weak,  in  fact,  if  not  in  form.  Can  true  philanthropists  content  themselves 
with  labors  which  only  shift  the  mode,  but  touch  not  the  vitality  of  social  evil  ? 
If  abolitionists  desire  the  actual  and  permanent  triumph  of  their  princiiyle^ 
they  must,  first  of  all,  set  the  battle  in  array  against  the  devil's  slavery  ; — 
'emancipation  FROM  ALL  sin'  must  be  their  watchword.  Evil  will  never 
begin  to  die  at  the  root^  until  it  is  exposed  to  4he  heart-purging  power  of  the 
gospel  of  hohness.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  that  true  reform  which  has  no 
draw-back  will  be  begun. 

Association  puts  forward  the  most  confident  and  plausible  pretension  to  the 
honor  of  being  the  all-comprehensive,  and  therefore  primary  reform.  But  it 
confesses  that  good  men  are  essential  as  its  antecedents  ;  and  this  amounts  to 
a  confession  that  the  reform  ivhich  makes  good  inen  must  go  before  it.  It  is 
related  that  a  vagrant  once  called  at  a  house  by  the  wa,yside,  and  told  the 
people  that  he  was  not  a  beggar,  but  he  merely  wanted  the  loan  of  a  kettle 
to  make  some  'stone  soup'  for  his  dinner.  They  granted  his  request,  and 
the  more  readily,  because  they  were  curious  to  learn  the  method  of  making 
a  soup  that  cost  nothing.  He  gathered  a  few  stones,  and  putting  water  to 
them,  hung  them  over  the  fire.  As  the  people  watched  the  boiling  of  the 
pot,  he  observed  in  a  careless  way  that  a  little  salt,  if  it  was  at  hand,  would 
improve  the  soup  somewhat.  Accordingly  they  put  in  some  salt.  After  a 
while,  he  suggested  that  a  handful  or  two  of  flour  would  not  be  amiss.  So  a 
good  thickening  of  flour  was  added.  Finally,  he  said  if  they  had  any  spare 
meat-bones  about,  it  would  be  well  enough  to  put  them  in  ;  not  that  tliey 
were  necessary  at  all,  but  they  would  improve  the  flavor.     The  people,  wish- 


454  PRIMARY  REFORM. 

ing  to  give  the  experiment  every  advantage,  put  in  a  number  of  rich  bones  ; 
and  when  at  last  they  were  allowed  to  taste  of  the  '  stone  soup,'  to  their  as- 
tonishment they  found  it  excellent !  We  think  of  this  story  when  we  hear 
Associationists  vaunting  the  all-redeeming  power  of  their  system,  and  yet  ask- 
ing for  good  men  to  begin  with.  If  they  can  find  means  to  put  the  salt  of 
brotherly  love,  i\\Q  flour  of  industrious  and  enterprising  habits,  and  the  meat- 
hones  of  wealth  and  good  morals  into  their  pot,  we  have  no  doubt  that  their 
'  stone  soup'  will  be  very  good. 

It  is  too  evident  to  need  demonstration  that  religious  unity  must  be  the 
basis  of  all  other  valuable  and  permanent  unities.  Fourierists  talk  much 
about  the  necessity  of  ''congeniality*  in  those  who  attempt  Association.  But 
what  congeniality  can  there  be  without  unity  of  religious  faith  ?  Is  not  reli- 
gion pre-eminently  an  '  affair  of  the  heart  ?'  When  two  young  persons  of 
different  and  hostile  religious  sentiments  associate  for  matrimonial  life,  do  not 
all  sagacious  friends  fear  that  their  congeniality  will  prove  to  be  only  '  skin 
deep  ?'  Experience  has  already  proved  that  all  the  advantages  and  attrac- 
tions of  Association  are  not  able  to  draw  its  votaries  out  of  their  respective 
religious  orbits,  or  to  prevent  the  collisions  incident  to  a  system  which  brings 
independent  spheres  so  near  that  their  orbits  constantly  cross  each  other.  If 
Fourier  expected  to  introduce  harmony  into  human  society  without  first  estab- 
lishing religious  unity,  we  are  bold  to  say  that  he  was  a  superficial  philoso- 
pher, ignorant  of  human  nature,  and  of  the  true  doctrine  of  unity. 

Association  can  escape  the  evils  resulting  from  reUgious  differences,  only 
in  one  of  two  ways.  It  must  either  select  for  its  experiments  none  but  those 
who  have  no  heart-religion,  and  care  nothing  about  it,  or  it  must  address  it- 
self to  the  task  of  developing  a  religion  which  shall  prove  itself  sti-ong  enough 
to  supersede  all  others  and  reconcile  all  honest  hearts.  The  former  of  these 
ways  is  the  shortest  and  easiest,  and  seems  to  suit  the  hasty  genius  of  the 
Fourier  enthusiasm  best.  But  we  are  sure  that  the  latter  will  be  found  the 
safest  and  most  economical  in  the  long  run.  We  regard  the  establishment  of 
rehgious  unity  as  entirely  feasible.  Let  the  gospel  of  holiness  do  its  work  in  the 
lieart,  and  sin,  the  radical  cause  of  all  religious  differences,  will  be  taken 
;away.  Let  men  truly  join  themselves  to  the  Lord,  and  they  will  have  one 
spirit ;  and  unity  of  spirit  will  lead  to  unity  of  faith. 

We  are  confident  that  reformers  generally  feel  the  want  of  what  the  Fou- 
rierists call  '  organization  of  industry' — we  mean  the  organization  of  the  dif- 
ferent branches  of  reform.  If  unity  of  purpose  and  harmonious  distribution 
into  series  and  groups  is  desirable  in  physical  labor,  how  much  more  is  it  to 
be  desired  in  the  higher  moral  movements  which  are  in  progress.  But  unity 
imphes  a  central  and  presiding  power.  Accordingly,  the  classes  that  are  in- 
terested in  the  various  reforms  have  long  been  instinctively  groping  about  for 
some  generic  principle  back  of  them  all,  and  combining  the  strength  of  all. 
One  cause  after  another  has  been  proclaimed  by  its  more  ardent  advocates 
the  rightful  centre  of  unity.  But  the  world  of  refoim  is  yet  a  '  chaos  with- 
out form  and  void.'  The  king-bee  has  not  been  found,  and  the  swarm  is  fly- 
ing to  and  fro  without  concert  or  aim.  The  considerations  which  have  been 
presented  in  the  preceding  survey  of  the  reform  field,  embolden  us  to  nomi- 


LEAI)INGS  OF  THE  SPIRIT.  455 

nate  the  gospel  of  salvation  from  sin  as  a  candidate  for  the  primacy.  That 
gospel  and  the  reform-spirit  were  born  and  bred  side  by  side.  Were  they 
not  made  for  each  other  ?  Was  not  the  match  between  the  religion  of  the 
one  and  the  morality  of  the  other  made  in  heaven  ?  We  believe  assuredly 
that '  the  stone  which  the  builders  have  rejected,  will  yet  be  the  head  of  the 
corner.' 


§  67.    LEADINGS  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 

We  have  not  a  doubt  that  believers  are  now,  as  they  were  in  the  times  of 
the  primitive  church,  directed  more  or  less  by  the  Spirit,  in  respect  to  their 
outward  movements.  And  by  this  we  mean,  not  merely  that  their  judgments 
are  guided,  or  that  they  are  assisted  in  choosing  their  course  by  the  openings 
of  Providence^  but  that  that  they  are  inclined  to  go  this  way  or  that,  or  to 
do  such  and  such  things,  by  a  spiritual  force  which  operates  like  instinct. — 
It  will  be  sufficiently  evident  from  the  tenor  of  the  doctrines  of  this  book,  that 
we  are  not  despisers  of  such  leadings.  Yet  w^e  are  obHged  to  confess  that 
we  have  seen  many  and  monstrous  abuses  growing  out  of  the  practice  of 
thinking  and  talking  much  about  instinctive  impulses  ;  and  we  propose  in  the 
present  article  to  bring  to  light  some  of  those  abuses,  and  to  suggest  some 
cautions  on  this  subject  to  those  who  need  them. 

1.  The  mere  fact  that  we  are  under  the  sensible  influence  of  some  spirit^ 
and  that  we  are  directed  in  a  supernatural  manner  to  go  or  to  do  thus  and 
so,  is  not  to  be  taken  for  evidence  that  w^e  are  under  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  of  Cfod.  Other  spirits  can  operate  on  our  instincts  as  w^ell  as  the  good 
spirit.  It  is  known  to  all  who  have  witnessed  the  phenomena  of  Mesmerism^ 
that  a  mere  human  spirit  can  entirely  control  an  impressible  person,  leading 
him  about  by  blind  impulse,  causing  him  to  think,  desire,  and  will,  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  magnetizer.  It  is  not  to  be  doubted,  therefore,  that  the 
*  gods  many  and  lords  many'  of  the  invisible  world,  have  the  power  of  leading 
human  wills.  We  gather  from  the  narrative  in  Luke  22:  3,  that  Judas  was- 
led  by  an  instinctive  impulse  from  the  devil  to  go  to  the  chief  priests  and 
betray  Christ.  Indeed  it  is  expressly  said  in  2  Tim.  2:26,  that  they  who 
are  in  the  devil's  snare,  are  '  taken  caijtive  hy  Mm  at  his  wilL^  Many  of 
the  vilest  impostors  we  have  ever  met  with,  were  most  abundant  in  their 
professions  of  being  led  by  the  Spirit,  and  doubtless  actually  were  led  in  a 
very  wonderful  manner  by  a  spirit,  though  not  by  the  Spirit  of  which  they 
professed  to  be  the  subjects.  So  also  many  well-meaning  persons  have  af- 
firmed that  they  were  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God  to  perform  unreasonable, 
scandalous  and  pernicious  acts  ;  and  we  see  no  reason  to  deny  their  sincerity 
in  this  Affirmation,  or  the  reality  of  the  impulses  under  which  they  acted  ; 
but  we  do  not  therefore  admit  or  believe  that  the  spirit  which  led  them  was 
really  the  Spirit  of  God.    Every  one  who  has  had  much  spiritual  experience^ 


456  LEADINGS   OF  THE   SPIRIT. 

must  have  met  with  instances  of  contradictory  leadings — cases  in  which, 
either  the  same  person  was  led  to  do  certain  things  and  then  to  undo  them, 
or  different  persons  were  led  in  opposite  and  irreconcilable  courses.  It  is 
impossible,  on  any  rational  grounds,  to  ascribe  such  clashing  directions  to  the 
operation  of  one  spirit.  God  certainly  does  not  contradict  himself.  It  is 
manifest  therefore,  that  in  such  instances  there  is  an  evil  spirit  leading,  on 
one  side  or  the  other.  The  sensation  or  experience  of  the  subject  in  all  cases 
of  spiritual  leading  is  probably  the  same,  and  accordingly  is  spoken  of  in  the 
same  terms  by  all.  If  a  man  says,  '  The  Lord  told  me  to  do  thus  and  so,' 
we  need  not  doubt  his  sincerity,  or  the  reality  of  his  spiritual  impressions  in 
the  case,  but  we  may  reasonably  doubt  till  we  ha^e  other  proof  than  his  as- 
sertion, whether  it  was  the  Lord  who  produced  those  impressions,  or  some 
other  spirit ;  for  it  is  certain  that  there  are  as  many  kinds  of  leading  powers 
that  put '  Thus  saith  the  Lord'  into  the  mouths  of  their  agents,  as  there  are 
independent  and  hostile  spirituahsts  in  the  world.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that 
a  man  ought  not  to  lay  to  heart  the  '  flattering  unction'  that  he  is  on  good 
terms  with  God,  merely  because  he  is  led  by  a  spirit  in  a  supernatural  man- 
ner ;  and  also  that  believers  ought  not  for  such  a  reason  only,  to  place  confi- 
dence in  spiritualists  who  come  among  them. 

The  fact  that  a  man  habitually  ascribes,  his  actions  and  teachings  to  a  su- 
pernatural influence,  may  be  taken  as  some  proof  that  he  is  a  spiritualist,  in 
distinction  from  a  mere  carnalist;  and  so  far  it  is  in  his  favor.  But  since 
there  are  bad  as  well  as  good  spiritualists,  and  the  bad  are  quite  as  forward 
in  proclaiming  that  Hhe  Lord  told  them  to  do  this  and  that,'  as  the  good,  we 
are  bound  to  require  other  tests  of  the  presence  of  God's  spirit  than  the  mere 
affirmation  or  behef  of  the  individual,  or  even  our  own  certainty  that  he  is  led 
and  taught  by  some  kind  of  inspiration.  Spirits  are  to  be  tried  and  proved 
as  well  as  other  things  ;  and  the  mere  fact  that  a  spirit  has  the  power  of  lead- 
ing even  with  superhuman  foresight  and  accuracy,  is  not  sufficient  proof  that 
it  is  trust-worthy.  We  must  seek  the  radical  distinction  between  true  and 
false  spirits,  in  their  inqral  characters  and  not  in  their  j97i?/S2<?aZ  powers.  We 
need  not  fear  to  trust  as  divine  any  spirit  which  evinces  to  our  consciousness 
or  to  sufficient  observation,  that  it  crucifies  Sfilf  and  enthrones  Jesus  Christ ; 
but  without  full  evidence  of  this,  all  manifestations  of  the  leading  or  wonder- 
working power  are  to  be  counted  as  nothing. 

2.  Admitting  that  a  man  is  really  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  yet  if  his  lea- 
dings are  only  of  the  external  kind,  such  as  to  go  or  do  thus  and  so,  they  are 
no  evidence  that  he  is  born  of  God.  The  prophets  under  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation, before  regeneration  came,  were  led  by  the  Spirit  in  a  great  variety 
of  external  ways,  and  quite  as  wonderfully  as  any  can  pretend  to  be  at  the 
present  time.  Moreover,  many  of  the  most  notable  examples  of  spiritual 
leadings  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  such  as  those  of  Philip,  and  Peter, 
(Acts  8:  26 — 39,  and  11:  12,)  occurred  during  the  transition  period  of  re- 
generation, previous  to  the  actual  attainment  of  the  new  birth  by  the  primi- 
tive church.  The  various  external  gifts  of  the  Spirit  (leadings  among  the 
rest)  abounded  in  that  church  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  forward  ;  but  the 
second  birth  was  a  later  blessing.    Aud  we  have  plain  intimations  that  those 


LEADINGS  OP  THE  SPIRIT.  457 

external  gifts — even  miracles,  for  instance,  and  certainly  therefore  such  minor 
mauifestatioiis  as  local  leadings — were  not  necessarily  linked  to  righteousness 
or  regeneration,  but  were  bestowed  on  many  who  had  finally  no  part  or  lot 
in  the  kingdom  of  Christ.     (See  Matt.  7:  22,  1  Cor.  13:  1—3,  &c.) 

When  Paul  speaks  of  being  '  led  by  the  Spirit,'  and  makes  this  the  test  of 
sonship,  as  in  Rom.  8:  14,  and  Gal.  5:  18,  we  must  not  narrow  down  his 
meaning  so  as  to  make  him  refer  merely  to  the  specific  directions  which  the 
Spirit  sometimes  gives  men  about  going  to  certain  places  or  doing  certain 
things.  To  be  led  by  the  Spirit  in  the  largest  sense  of  the  expression^  is  in- 
deed to  be  a  son  of  God  ;  but  that  sense  includes  something  far  more  impor- 
tant than  petty  directions  about  traveling,  speaking,  &c.  The  sons  of  God 
are  led  by  the  Spirit,  not  merely  as  to  their  locomotive  powers,  and  physical 
utterance,  but  as  to  their  hearts  and  understandings.  A  man  may  sit  per- 
fectly still,  not  uttering  a  word,  or  in  any  way  operating  externally,  and  yet 
be  led  by  the  Spirit  in  that  sense  which  is  essential  to  regeneration.  His 
heart  may  be  led  out  of  the  regions  of  spiritual  wickedness,  into  fellowship 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  His  understanding,  under  the  guidance  of 
heavenly  influence,  may  traverse  the  vast  expanse  of  spiritual  truth.  He 
may .'  run  and  not  be  weary,  and  walk  and  not  faint,'  on  'the  way  of  holiness.' 
The  most  important  leadings  of  the  Spirit  have  no  reference  whatever  to  ex- 
ternal operations.  The  sphere  in  which  they  act  is  not  the  physical,  but  the 
spiritual  and  intellectual  world.  Paul  says  '  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God.'  In  what  manner  are  they  led  ?  What 
are  they  led  to  do  ?  In  the  preceding  verse  (Rom.  8:  12)  we  are  informed. 
They  are  led,  not  to  do  bodily  deeds,  but  to  ^mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body ;' 
i.  e.,  they  are  led  into  spiritual  fellowship  with  Christ  crucified,  where  they 
get  power  to  become  spiritually  minded,  and  to  subdue  their  physical  nature. 
This  is  a  leading  of  the  heart  and  spirit, — not  of  the  external  faculties.  So 
when  Paul  says,  '  If  ye  be  led  of  the  Spirit  ye  are  not  under  the  law,'  (Gal. 
6:  18,)  it  is  manifest  from  what  follows,  that  he  refers  to  generic  internal 
leadings.  As  the  flesh  leads  to  'adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness,'  &c.,  so 
the  apostle's  doctrine  is  that  the  Spirit  leads  (not  chiefly  in  a  physical  way, 
as  a  man  leads  a  horse  from  place  to  place,  but)  to  '  love,  joy,  peace,  long- 
sufiering,  gentleness,  goodness,  faith,  meekness,  temperance.'  They  whose 
hearts  are  led  by  the  Spirit  into  these  things,  are  born  of  God,  whether  they 
have  any  wonderful  operations  in  their  instincts  of  locomotion,  utterance,  &c., 
or  not.  And  on  the  other  hand,  they  who  are  led  by  the  hand  or  the  foot 
or  the  tongue,  or  by  the  instincts  connected  with  these  physical  parts,  and 
not  by  the  heart  and  understanding,  are  not  born  of  God,  however  palpable 
and  w^onderful  may  be  the  guidance  to  which  they  are  subject. 

It  will  be  obvious  that  the  leadings  of  the  Spirit  esteemed  essential  to  re- 
generation in  the  primitive  church,  must  have  been  of  the  internal  kind  which 
we  have  indicated,  if  we  consider  that  the  mass  of  believers  wxre  so  situated 
as  to  their  external  condition  of  life,  that  the  specific  guidance  of  the  Spirit, 
in  relation  to  what  they  should  do  or  where  they  should  go,  could  not  be  ap- 
plied to  them.  The  apostles  and  other  similar  floating  laborers,  were  fit  sub- 
jects of  occasional  specific  external  directions.  But  3ic  majority  of  the  dis- 
57 


45B  LEADINGS   OP  THE  SPIRIT. 

cipleg  were  In  fixed  conditions,  employed  in  stationary  business,  having  tlie' 
Ordinary  routine  duties  of  fathers,  wives,  children,  slaves,  &c.,  to  perform. 
And  the  general  order  to  them  was—'  Let  every  man  abide  in  the  calling 
wherein  he  is  called.'  What  room  could  there  be  in  the  case  of  a  slave,  for 
instance,  for  much  external  leading  of  the  instinctive  or  supernatural  kind  ? 
As  to  his  physical  operations,  instead  of  being  led  by  the  Spirit,  he  was  bound 
to  be  led  by  a  human  master.  Yet  his  situation  was  no  hindrance  to  his  be- 
ing born  of  God,  and  therefore  no  hindrance  to  his  being  led  by  the  Spirit, 
in  the  true  sense  of  the  expression.  The  essential  leadings  are  adapted  to 
every  possible  external  condition.  They  are  the  necessary  effects  of  the  Spirit's 
possession  of  the  heart,  and  manifest  themselves  in  the  general,  moral  and 
intellectual  character.  Any  other  leadings  than  these  must  not  be  exalted 
into  matters  of  primary  importance,  or  relied  on  as  marks  of  regeneration, 
but  must  be  classed  with  the '  gifts,'  which  may  be  present  or  absent  without 
determining  radical  character. 

3.  There  are  different  kinds  of  external  leadings  of  the  Spirit,  and  some 
of  them  are  more  valuable  than  others.  Those  which  are  radical^  are  more 
to  be  desired  than  those  which  are  superficial.  By  radical  leadings  we  mean 
those  which  take  effect  on  the  rational  and  moral  faculties,  and  give  direction 
to  the  course  by  informing  the  understanding  and  exciting  the  deeper  sus- 
ceptibilities. Superficial  leadings  are  those  which  take  effect  on  the  external 
feelings,  and  operate  in  the  manner  of  mere  instinct.  It  is  supposable  that 
God  may  persuade  a  man  to  a  given  course  either  by  convincing  his  under- 
standing that  it  is  expedient,  or  by  impelling  him  toward  it  by  a  blind  instinct. 
In  either  case  God  would  lead  him.  Now  which  of  these  kinds  of  leading, 
other  things  being  equal,  is  most  desirable  ?  Unquestionably  the  first.  It  is 
better  that  a  man  should  be  led  as  a  moral  and  intellectual  being,  than  as  a 
mere  animal, — better  that  he  should  be  educated  to  act  in  view  of  rational 
motives  like  a  man,  than  that  he  should  live  always  under  the  discipline  of 
specific  directions  like  a  child.  It  is  better  that  he  should  be  able  to  give  an 
acceptable  reason  for  his  course,  than  that  he  should  be  obliged  to  rely  for 
justification  before  men,  on  his  own  averment  that  God  told  him  to  do  thus 
and  so.  Paul  earnestly  exhorted  the  primitive  believers  to  allow  the  under- 
standing to  take  part  with  the  Spirit  in  their  proceedings.  1  Cor.  14.  As 
he  said,  '  I  will  sing  with  the  spirit,  and  I  will  sing  with  the  understanding 
also,'  so  we  may  say,  '  We  will  travel,  speak,  and  in  all  things  act,  with  the 
understanding  as  well  as  with  the  Spirit.'  We  may  be  sure  that  God  is  not 
opposed  to,  but  entirely  in  favor  of,  the  exercise  and  cultivation  of  our  ra- 
tional powers,  as  well  as  our  mere  animal  instincts,  in  the  service  of  the  Spirit. 
*  In  malice  be  ye  children,  but  in  understanding  be  men.' 

Again,  it  is  supposable  that  God  may  persuade  a  man  to  a  certain  purpose 
by  his  Spirit,  and  then  allow  him  to  work  out  that  purpose,  in  its  details,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  judgment  without  specific  directions  ;  or  he  may  keep 
back  the  purpose  in  his  own  mind,  and  lead  the  man  by  blind  instinct,  opera- 
ting step  by  step,  to  do  what  is  required  for  its  fulfilment.  Which  of  these 
ways  is  most  befitting  the  position  of  sons  of  God  ?  The  leading  of  the  Spirit 
is  equally  real  in  both  cases.    The  only  difference  is  that  in  the  first  case  the 


K  LEADINGS   OE  THE  SPIRIT.  459 

Spirit  works  radically,  implanting  a  purpose,  out  of  whicli  a  series  of  specific 
acts  grow  spontaneously ;  and  in  the  second  case  it  works  superficially,  pro- 
ducing each  specific  act  by  a  separate  infusion  of  instinct.  The  last  may  be 
best  for  mere  servants  or  children,  but  the  other  is  certainly  the  true  way  of 
dealing  with  grown  sons.  '  The  servant  knoweth  not  what  his  Lord  doeth,' 
and  of  course  acts  blindly  as  he  is  bid.  The  mere  child  must  be  told  specifi- 
cally what  to  do  and  what  not  to  do.  But  as  soon  as  God's  children'^become 
capable  of  forming  purposes,  as  well  as  of  executing  details,  we  may  be  sure 
that  he  will  honor  his  own  nature  in  them  enough  to  direct  them  radically, 
rather  than  superficially. 

The  external  leadings  of  the  Spirit,  then,  considered  as  ^  gifts,'  may  be 
desired  ;  but  as  Paul  exhorts  believers  to  '  covet  earnestly  the  best  gifts,'  so 
we  should  earnestly  covet  the  best  leadings.  Instinctive  directions  to  do 
certain  specific  things,  should  be  regarded  as  discipHne  specially  adapted  to 
children,  and  of  the  least  account.  Our  desire  should  be  that  our  whole  na- 
ture may  be  brought  into  the  service  of  the  Spirit,  so  that  God  may  avail 
himself  of  our  understandings,  and  the  whole  range  of  our  susceptibilities, 
instead  of  being  obliged  to  move  us  about  mechanically.  We  should  cultivate 
our  judgments,  and  learn  as  fast  as  we  can  to  form  far-reaching  purposes  in 
the  Spirit.  We  should  aspire  to  be,  not  merely  instruments  in  the  hands  of 
God,  but  co-workers  with  him,  acting  from  the  same  motives  as  those  in  his 
mind,  and  partaking  of  his  intelligence  and  freedom.  And  in  order  that  we 
may  not  be  hindered  from  doing  this,  we  must  not  suffer  ourselves  to  be 
hampered  by  the  narrow  notions  which  many  spiritualists  entertain  in  relation 
to  the  leadings  of  the  Spirit.  There  is  a  theory  on  this  subject  which  de- 
serves the  name  of  antinomianism,  in  its  worst  sense — a  theory  which  pre- 
cludes all  free,  manly  action,  and  makes  the  holders  of  it  mere  puppets  or 
do-nothings.  Let  us  seek  out  the  '  more  excellent  way'  of  the  primitive 
church. 


§  68.    THE  DOCTRINE  OF  DISUNITY. 


1-1 1  milt 


The  Perfectionist  school  at  an  early  period  was  tainted  with  the  idea  that 
a  sort  of '  touch-me-not'  independence  which  precludes  the  possibihty  of  unity, 
is  the  prime  glory  of  the  gospel  of  holiness.  In  the  files  of  The  Perfectionist 
published  at  New  Haven  in  1834 — 5,  many  traces  of  this  idea  may  be  found  ; 
and  it  becomes  quite  visible  and  prominent  after  about  the  middle  of  the  first 
volume.  The  presiding  spirit  announces  from  time  to  time,  not  as  a  matter 
of  regi-et  and  reproof,  but  with  evident  complacency,  that  "  Perfectionists, 
so  called,  stand  as  independent  of  each  other,  as  they  do  of  any  of  the  anti- 
christian  churches — they  will  not  be  taught  of  each  other,  as  they  are  '  all 
taught  of  God  ;'....  they  differ  among  themselves  on  almost  all  points, 
except  the  great  distinguishing  one,  viz.,  perfection  in  holiness.^^ 

This  idea,  which  we  will  call  the  docbdne  of  disunity ^  was  developed  and 
rendered  popular  among  Perfectionists  by  a  variety  of  causes,  some  of  which 
we  will  briefly  mention. 

1.  Perfectionism  Avas  an  insurrection  against  the  old  churches  ;  and  insur- 
rections always  generate  exaggerated  theories  of  independence. 

2.  A  general  and  undiscriminating  reaction  against  the  principles  of  the 
churches,  carried  many  into  prejudices  against  things  which  are  good,  as  well 
as  those  which  are  evil.  The  tendency  and  strife  was  to  keep  clear  of  every 
thing  that  smelt  of  the  old  systems.  Confounding  the  eternal  and  invaluable 
principle  of  organization,  which  pervades  all  things  that  have  life  and  growth, 
with  the  bondage  and  hatefuhiess  of  'sectarianism,'  which  were  seen  and  had 
been  experienced  in  the  churches,  the  cry  was  raised  and  re-echoed — • 
*Away  with  all  thoughts  of  organization,  mutual  dependence,  and  subordination! 
Touch  not,  taste  not,  handle  not  these  abominations  of  Babylon  !' 

3.  Crude  notions  of  the  '  liberty  of  the  gospel'  and  of  the  '  teachings  of  the 
Spirit,'  and  an  idea  that  these  privileges  are  incompatible  with  union  and 
discipline,  contributed  to  the  growth  of  the  doctrine  of  disunity. 

4.  Some  doubtless  joined  the  standard  of  Perfectionism,  not  because  they 
loved  hohness,  but  because  they  were  weary  of  the  restraints  of  the  duty-doing 
churches.  Perfectionism  presented  them  a  fine  opportunity  of  giving  full 
swing  to  carnality,  and  at  the  same  time,  of  glorying  over  the  '  servants'  un- 
der law.     Persons  of  this  class  are  the  natural  friends  of  anarchy. 

5.  Private  jealousies  in  relation  to  leadership,  made  some  Perfectionist 
leaders  very  fierce  against  every  thing  tending  to  consolidation. 

6.  All  these  causes  were  quickened  mto  increased  activity,  by  the  partial 
alliance  which  took  place  between  Perfectionism  and  Abolitionism. 

The  result  was  what  might  have  been  expected,  viz.,  confusion  like  that  of 
Babel — enmity  like  that  of  Ishmael.  Men  who  expect  to  scatter,  who  set  no 
value  on  unity,  who  despise  the  precepts  and  example  of  the  primitive  church 
in  relation  to  organization  and  mutual  dependence,  who  nourish  their  hearts 
with  nothing  but  centrifugal,  insurrectionary  principles,  who  prize  individual- 
ity and  self-will  infinitely  more  than  the  unity  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the 


DOCTRINE   OF   DISUNITY.  461 

attractions  of  brotherly  love,  will  necessarily  rush  into  isolation  and  anarchy, 
and  stand,  each  man  like  a  porcupine,  with  quills  of  jealousy  sticking  out  in 
every  direction. 

Such,  to  a  great  extent,  was  the  state  of  Perfectionists,  at  one  time ;  and 
though  a  change  for  the  better  has  evidently  taken  place  within  a  few  years, 
the  leaven  of  the  doctrine  of  disunity  is  by  no  means  yet  purged  out.  We 
have  still  many  among  us  who  are  more  afraid  of  gathering  together  than  of 
scattering  abroad  ;  who,  in  all  their  communications  are  more  careful  to  put 
in  a  eaveat  against  the  idea  of  whole-hearted  agreement  with  a  brother,  than 
to  utter  an  aspiration  after  oneness  of  heart  and  mind  ;  who  seem  to  think 
that  Christ's  new  commandment — the  glory  of  the  new  covenant — instead  of 
being  'Love  one  another,''  should  be,  'Take  care  that  you  do  not  lean  on  one 
another  ;  heware  of  knitting  together  ;  e^ipecially  beware  of  noimshing,  and 
being  nourished  hy ,  one  another  f — as  if  the  members  of  a  living  body 
did  not  lean,  nay,  depend  on  one  another,  and  were  not  knit  together  in 
inextricable  unity,  and  did  not  nourish,  and  receive  nourishment  from,  one 
another ! 

Unity  cannot  be  forced,  but  it  may  be  favored  by  correct  views  ;  and  on 
the  other  hand,  it  may  be  hindered  by  false  notions.  In  spiritual  things  men 
do  not  attain  what  they  do  not  expect.  Hence  the  importance  of  correct  the- 
ories. The  doctrine  that  men  may  be  saved  from  sin  in  this  world,  is  impor- 
tant, because  without  it,  salvation  from  sin  is  not  expected  ;  and  if  it  is  not 
expected,  it  is  not  sought ;  and  if  it  is  not  sought,  it  is  not  attained.  So  a 
true  idea  of  the  possibility  and  value  of  unity  is  important,  because,  without 
it,  unity  will  not  be  expected  or  sought,  and  of  course  will  not  be  attained. 
A  man  who  makes  it '  the  post  in  the  middle'  of  his  religion — the  cream  of 
his  creed — that  every  one  is  to  stand  by  himself,  and  that  unity  is  not  to  be 
expected  or  desired,  is  in  no  condition  to  enter  into  unity.  His  theory  is  a 
wall  round  about  him,  repulsing  the  overtures  of  brotherly  love  as  invasions 
of  his  individuality.  On  these  grounds  Ave  shall  take  the  liberty  to  enter  our 
protest  against  the  doctrine  of  disunity,  and  to  show  that  it  is  not  a  vital  part 
or  natural  accompaniment  of  Perfectionism,  but  an  incongruous  and  hostile 
parasite,  attached  to  it  by  the  enemy  of  all  righteousness,  for  the  purpose  of 
drawing  off  its  life. 

We  aver  that  every  branch  of  the  doctrine  of  holiness  tends  to  unity. 

I.  Faith,  which  is  the  root  of  holiness,  is  an  act  of  union.  It  joins  the  life 
of  the  believer  to  the  life  of  Christ.  It  draws  a  man  out  of  his  individuality, 
and  merges  self  in  fellowship  with  another.  It  is  directly  opposed  to  isolation. 
And  that  which  draws  a  man  out  of  self  into  partnership  with  God,  necessarily 
establishes  in  his  spirit  a  social  principle  which  draws  him  toward  unity  with 
his  brother.  It  may  safely  be  affirmed  that  a  sohtary,  self-absorbed  spirit 
has  not  and  cannot  have  true  faith. 

II.  Holiness  itself  is  essentially  a  uniting  principle.  Men  may  indeed 
profess  holiness,  and  talk  and  argue  for  the  doctrine  of  holiness,  and  yet  be 
IshmaeUtes.  But  such  persons  either  attach  no  definite  idea  to  the  word  holi- 
ness, using  it  only  as  a  party  shibboleth,  or  mean  by  it  merely  the  negation  of 
sin.     A  true  definition  of  the  word  exposes  their  emptiness.     Holiness  is  not 


4G2  DOCTRINE    OF    DISUNITY. 

a  mere  watchword,  or  a  negation.  It  is  love.  If  it  were  nothing  but  the  ne- 
gation of  sin,  a  stone  might  be  called  holy.  It  is  conformity  to  the  law,  and 
the  law  requires  positive  love.  And  the  love-principle  of  holiness  looks,  not 
merely  toward  God,  but  toAvard  men.  It  is  the  love  of  God  shed  abroad  in 
the  heart ;  and  as  God  loves  men,  so  whoever  has  God's  love  in  his  heart, 
loves  men.  Holiness,  then,  is  an  attracting,  harmonizing  principle.  Its  ten- 
dency is  to  make  all  who  possess  it,  one  in  heart ;  and  unity  of  heart  is  the 
earnest  of  unity  of  mind  and  action.  Persons  who  are  in  love  with  each  oth- 
er, easily  learn  to  think  ahke.  Love  makes  them  modest  in  regard  to  them- 
selves, respectful  toward  one  another,  patient  in  discussion,  ready  to  appreci- 
ate each  other's  truths,  anxious  for  agreement.  Thus  the  heart  draws  the 
head  after  it ;  and  if  the  heart  is  in  the  truth,  the  closer  the  head  follows  it 
the  better. 

III.  The  new  covenant  privilege  of  being  taught  and  led  hy  the  Spirit^ 
though  it  has  been  perverted,  perhaps  more  than  any  other  principle  of  Per- 
fectionism, into  subservience  to  the  doctrine  of  disunity,  is  really  the  strong- 
est bond  of  agreement.  Self-willed  talkers  about  hohness  seize  upon  the 
doctrine  of  divine  illumination  and  make  great  account  of  it,  merely  for  the 
sake  of  the  license  which  they  suppose  it  gives  them  to  reject  all  fraternal 
teachings  and  influences,  and  fortify  themselves  in  jealous  individuality  of 
thought  and  will.  Thus  it  is  made  to  nourish  a  spirit  of  isolation  which  is 
utterly  incompatible  with  even  the  loosest  forms  of  associate  life,  to  say  noth- 
ing of  the  unity  of  the  body  of  Christ.  But  let  us  look  at  the  teachings  of 
the  Spirit  from  another  point  of  view.  Instead  of  expecting,  and  thus  allow- 
ing, antagonism  of  sentiments  among  those  who  profess  to  be  led  by  the  Spirit, 
we  should  assume,  from  the  unity  of  their  guiding  influence,  that  their  minds 
will  converge  to  a  common  centre,  and  that  they,  above  all  others,  will  think 
alike  and  act  alike.  Men  of  the  world,  who  walk  in  the  light  of  '  sparks 
which  they  themselves  have  kindled,'  may  be  expected  to  scatter  and  cross 
each  other  in  every  direction.  But  how  is  it  possible  that  minds  under  the 
same  divine  influence,  having  each  the  one  '  mind  of  Christ,'  should  disagree? 
The  unity  of  their  light,  the  clearness  of  vision  which  it  gives  them,  and  the 
love  which  goes  with  it,  all  tend  to  make  them  of  one  heart,  one  mind,  and 
one  voice.  The  instinct  of  animals  is  undoubtedly  an  influx  from  the  spiritual 
world,  and  may  illustrate  the  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  Bees,  for  in- 
stance, are  governed  in  their  wonderful  operations,  not  chiefly  by  the  influen- 
ces of  education,  or  mutual  consultation  and  direction,  or  individual  self- 
motion,  butby  a  common  spiritual  impulse.  Is  this  a  reason  why  we  should 
expect  anarchy  and  cross-purposes  among  them  ?  Does  an  individual  bee 
ever  bristle  up  in  the  spirit  of  independence,  and  say,  '  I  am  taught  by  the 
Spirit,  and  I  must  therefore  act  by  myself ;  I  will  not  build  comb  and  store 
honey  in  concert  with  a  swarm !'  The  truth  is,  the  one  spirit  that  guides  the 
swarm,  is  the  very  element  of  unity,  subordination,  and  combined  labor.  So 
it  must  necessarily  be  with  those  who  are  taught  and  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
Isolation  and  opposition  of  thought  and  will,  instead  of  being  the  appropriate 
results  of  divine  illumination,  are  the  surest  proofs  that  the  society  in  which 
they  appear,  as  a  whole  or  m  part,  is  guided  by  self  and  the  devil.    If  the 


rOCTRlNE    OF    DISUNITY.  4GS 

Spirit  of  God  is  one,  all  who  are  led  by  it,  and  in  proportion  as  they  are  led 
by  it,  will  think  and  act  as  one  ;  and  if  two  individuals  professing  to  be  led 
by  the  Spirit,  cross  each  other,  it  is  certain  that  one  or  the  other  of  them  is 
a  false  pretender. 

IV.  The  doctrine  that  believers  are  not  under  law,  has  been  made  the 
excuse  for  anarchy.  But  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  gospel  holds 
forth  no  such  doctrine  bi/  itself.  The  form  of  sound  words  is  this — '  Ye  are 
not  under  law,  hut  under  grace  ;^  and  the  first  half  of  this  declaration,  with- 
out the  last,  is  nothing.  Men  are  free  from  law  only  so  far  as  they  are  sub- 
ject to  grace.  And  what  is  it  to  be  '  under  grace  ?'  It  is  a  submission  of 
one's  own  spirit  to  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  It  is  a  subjection  of  the  flesh  to  the 
spirit,  and  of  the  spirit  to  the  will  of  God.  Is  there  any  thing  like  isolation, 
insubordination,  and  high-headed  independence  in  this  ?  Is  a  spirit  a  less 
controlhng  power  than  a  law  ?  or  submission  to  a  spirit,  a  less  self-subduing 
act  than  submission  to  a  law  ?  Nay,  the  '  touch-me-not'  spirit  belongs  to  the 
law  dispensation,  if  any  where.  Submission  to  grace  merges  self-will  in  the 
will  of  another.  A  behever,  above  all  others,  is  not '  a  wild  ass's  colt,'  that 
spurns  dominion.  Christ  has  a  '  yoke'  for  his  followers,  and  it  binds  them  to 
subordination  and  co-operation,  not  less  stringently  than  the  yoke  of  the  law. 
It  is  '  easy,'  not  because  it  is  weak  and  uncontrolling,  but  because  it  carries 
a  good  disposition  with  it. 

V.  Crucifixion  with  Christ  is  a  participation  in  the  spirit  which  was  in 
Christ  when  he  was  crucified.  What  kind  of  a  spirit  was  that  ?  Hear  its 
utterance :  '  Then  said  he,  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  0  God.' — '•Not  my 
tvill,  but  thine  be  done.'  The  spirit  of  the  cross  is  pre-eminently  the  spirit 
of  meekness  and  subordination.  It  is  death  to  self-will.  From  '  the  flesh' 
proceed  '  hatred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath,  strife,  seditions,  heresies,  envy- 
ings,  and  such  like  ;'  and  in  the  cross  of  Christ  the  flesh  is  given  to  the  nails 
and  to  the  spear.  Self-will  is  the  same  thing,  whether  it  turns  toward  God 
or  toward  men.  It  refuses  subordination  ;  and  without  subordination  there 
can  be  no  union  with  God  or  man.  The  cross  of  Christ,  therefore,  by  destroy- 
ing self-will,  takes  away  the  principal — we  might  almost  say  the  only — obsta- 
cle to  the  union  of  believers.  A  man  who  has  heartily  submitted  to  God  by 
the  cross,  will  never  refuse  submission  to  any  secondary  agencies  which  exist 
by  the  will  of  God,  and  are  necessary  to  the  execution  of  his  plans.  The 
uncircumcised  spirit  of  independence  which  says, '  I  submit  to  God  in  person, 
but  not  to  any  subordinate  agency,'  has  not  a  semblance  of  the  spirit  of  the 
cross.  If  Christ  had  thus  submitted  by  halves,  he  would  have  said  on  Cal- 
vary, '  I  submit  to  God  ;  he  may  do  as  he  pleases  with  me  ;  but  as  to  allowing 
Pilate  and  Herod  and  the  Roman  soldiers  to  have  charge  of  me,  I  will  let 
loose  twelve  legions  of  angels  on  them  first.'  This  would  have  been  quite  a 
moderate  and  excusable  exhibition  of  self-will,  in  comparison  with  that  of  one 
who  says — '  I  submit  to  God  in  heaven,  but  not  to  God  in  human  beings,  un- 
der any  circumstances.'  A  crucified  church,  instead  of  being  distinguished 
for  its  proud  spirit  of  individuality,  is  the  very  society  above  all  others,  in 
which  the  exhortation,  '  Submit  yourselves  one  to  another,'  will  find  place. 

VI.  The  doctrine  that  Christ  is  in  believers  and  that  the  church  is  the  body 
of  Christ,  calls  aloud  for  the  unity  of  the  saints.    This  doctrine  was  Paul'a 


464  DOCTRINE    OP    DISUIiriTY. 

favorite  theme.  See  what  he  says  in  1  Cor.  12:  12—30,  Eph.  4:  16,  and 
Col.  2: 19,  about  the  intimate  union,  mutual  assistance  and  subordination,  of 
the  members  of  Christ.  They  are  '  knit  together  by  joints  and  bands,'  '  fitly 
joined  together  and  compacted  h^  that  which  every  joint  supj^lieth  ;'  and  no 
member  can  say  to  its  fellow,  '  I  have  no  need  of  thee.'  They  who  pride 
themselves  on  having  a  religion  which  '  forbids  ns  to  lean  on  one  another,' 
will  do  well  to  study  Paul's  theory  of  anatomy.  Who  ever  heard  of  a  living 
body  in  which  the  members  were  isolated  from  each  other,  and  acted  without 
concert  and  mutual  help  ;  in  which  the  brain  did  not  use  the  service  of  the 
eye,  and  the  eye  direct  the  hand,  and  the  hand  minister  food  to  the  mouth, 
and  the  mouth  to  the  stomach,  and  the  stomach  to  the  trunk,  and  the  trunk  to 
the  limbs  ;  in  which  the  nerves  were  not  subject  to  the  brain,  and  the  muscles 
to  the  nerves,  and  the  tendons  to  the  muscles,  and  the  bones  to  the  tendons  ? 
Unity,  concert,  and  subordination,  are  the  elements  of  all  natural  organization, , 
and  were  pre-eminently  the  elements  of  spiritual  organization  in  Paul's  time. . 
There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  body  of  Christ  has  essentially  changed 
its  mode  of  existence,  or  the  laws  of  its  growth  and  action.  Certainly  it  has 
not  become  a  mass  of  severed  fragments  and  particles,  acting  each  one  by 
itself;  for  that  would  be  a  dead  carcase.  If  the  true  church  is  the  body  of 
Christ,  there  is  no  true  church  where  there  is  not  compact  junction,  mutual  I 
ministration,  and  organic  subordination. 

Thus  the  central  doctrines  of  Perfectionism,  one  and  all,  draw  with  their  : 
whole  force  toward  unity.     Men  may  talk  about  them  without   seeing   their  • 
tendency  or  feeling  their  attraction.     But  such  men  are  mere  letter-Perfec- : 
tionists.     ISTo  man  has  received  the  spm'it  of  those  doctrines,  who  does  not 
feel  in  the  yearnings  of  his  heart,  and  manifest  in  the  travail  of  his  life,  the 
spirit  of  Christ's  prayer,  '  that  all  who  believe  may  be  one  ;  as  thou  Father 
art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us.      I  in  them  and 
thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  made  perfect  in  one  ;  and  that  the  world  may 
know  that  thou  hast  sent  me,  and  hast  loved  them  as  thou  has  loved  me.' 
John  19:  20 — 23.     It  ought  to  be  assumed  among  us,  and  it  will  be  assumed, 
when  experience  has  developed  wisdom,  that  a  man  who  is  jealous  for  self- 
will  and  self-teaching,  and  talks  largely  about  his  independence  of  his  breth- 
ren, and  evidently  values  the  liberty  of  isolation  more  than  love,  is  no  Per- 
fectionist.    The  spirit  of  such  a  man  is  utterly  incompatible  with  that  faith'i 
which  merges  self  in  another — that  holiness  which  is  love — that  guidance  off 
the  Spirit  which  makes  all  who  receive  it  one — that  freedom  from  the  law 
which  is  submission  to  the  yoke  of  grace — that  crucifixion  with  Chiist  which 
consigns  the  will  of  the  flesh  to  death,  and  that  mutual  dependence  which  iS' 
essential  to  the  organization  of  the  hody  of  Christ. 

In  the  name  of  all  the  doctrines  of  Perfectionism,  and  of  all  true  lovers 
of  them,  we  protest  against  the  assumption  which  has  been  admitted  among 
us,  that  we  are  always  to  stand  aloof  from  each  other,  without  organization, 
without  concert,  expecting  without  regret  and  allowing  without  resistance, 
differences  and  dissensions,  as  if  such  an  Ishmaelitish  state  were  our  natural 
and  peculiar  privilege.  This  assumption  is  a  vile  libel  on  the  gospel  of 
holiness. 


y^ 


.rf^jm^^-^  ■■"i-- 


§  69.    FIERY  DARTS  QUENCHED, 

BY   AN   APPEAL  TO   THE  HISTORY   OF  THE  PRIMITIVE   CHURCH. 

"Beloved,  think  it  not  strange  concerning  the  fiery  trial  which  is  to  try  you,  as 
though  some  strange  thing  happened  unto  you.  The  same  affiictions  are  accom- 
plished in  your  brethren  that  are  in  the  world."  1  Pet.  4:  12.  5:  9. 

One  of  the  ordeals  appointed  for  the  trial  of  our  faith — perhaps  the  seve- 
rest of  all — is  that  through  which  we  pass  wlien  we  witness  the  treachery  and 
apostasy  of  those  whom  we  have  regarded  as  true  believers  and  brethren  in 
the  Lord.  As  we  see  one  and  another  of  our  associates  in  profession,  with- 
ering and  falling  away,  we  involuntarily  exclaim,  '  How  can  it  be  that  men 
whose  experience  has  been  so  notable,  and  whose  testimony  has  been  so  ani- 
mating, should  after  all  prove  to  be  false-hearted  ?  What  does  it  mean  f — 
And  then  comes  the  tempter,  insinuating  suggestions  like  these  : — '  Perhaps 
9/ou  will  fall  away  in  hke  manner.  How  can  you  have  confidence  in  any  who 
profess  salvation  from  sin  ?  The  gospel  of  holiness  has  not  been  able  to  save 
many  who  at  first  seemed  to  be  its  noblest  trophies.  Why  should  you  not 
dou1)t  whether  it  is  the  true  gospel  ?  May  it  not  be  altogether  a  delusion  ? 
Is  there  any  such  thing  as  security  in  holiness  V 
^^The  power  of  these  suggestions  to  perplex  and  torment  believers,  depends 
^vthe  existence  in  their  minds  of  certain  crude  and  unauthorized  imagina- 
tions concerning  the  eifects  which  the  true  gospel,  in  its  operation  on  the 
world,  may  be  expected  to  produce.  If  it  is  assumed  that  the  genuine  word 
of  God  must  necessarily  take  permanent  root  and  bear  fruit  unto  eternal  life, 
in  all  who  seem  to  receive  it  with  excitement  and  delight ;  and  that  the  Chris- 
tian profession  in  the  present  state  of  things  must  be  a  holy  enclosure  into 
which  '  nothing  that  defileth'  can  enter,  and  from  which  there  can  be  no  de- 
sertions ;  then  the  apostasies  which  have  attended  the  career  of  the  gospel 
of  salvation  from  sin,  may  justly  be  regarded  as  evidences  of  its  essen- 
tial failure,  and  as  reasons  for  distrust  of  ourselves,  of  our  brethren,  and 
■  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  which  we  have  embraced.  Such  assumptions, 
we  believe,  will  be  found  lurking  in  the  minds  of  all  who  are  troubled  and 
shaken  in  mind  by  the  spiritual  bankruptcies  which  occur  from  time  to  time 
among  us.  We  intend  to  test  these  assumptions  by  the  instructions  and  facts 
of  the  New  Testament. 

f  Ave  have  only  the  same  grace  and  truth  which  the  primitive  church  had, 
n,  unless  human  nature  has  changed,  or  the  devil  has  abdicated  his  sove- 
reignty over  it,  (which  will  not  be  assumed,)  we  ought  to  look  for  only  the 
same  general  phenomena  in  the  operation  of  the  gospel  now,  as  attended  its 
course  in  the  apostolic  age.  What  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  did  then, 
we  may  hope  it  Avill  do  now ;  and  wherein  it  failed  then,  we  ought  to  expect 
that  it  will  fail  now.  Let  us  see  then  whether  the  gospel  introduced  by  Christ 
and  the  apostles,  saved  all  who  professed  to  receive  it  and  for  a  season  re- 
joiced in  it ;  and  whether  the  primitive  church  escaped  the  ordeal  of  treach- 
ery and  desertion. 

68 


i 


i^^  FlERt   DARlDS  QUENCHED* 

I.  We  Will  look  at  some  of  the  parables  of  Christ,  in  which  he  gives  a  hird's' 
^ye  view  of  the  course  of  the  first  gospel  dispensation.  The  parable  of  the 
i^wer  is  in  points     Christ's  explanation  of  it  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  : 

"  The  seed  is  the  woi'd  of  God.  Those  by  the  Way-side  are  they  that  hear  ; 
then  Cometh  the  devil,  and  taketh  away  the  word  out  of  their  hearts,  lest  they 
should  believe  and  be  saved.  They  on  the  rock  are  they,  which,  when  they  hear, 
receive  the  word  with  joy  5  and  these  have  no  root,  which  for  a  while  believe, 
and  in  time  of  temptation  fall  away.  And  that  which  fell  among  thorns  are  they, 
tvhichj  when  they  have  heard,  go  forth,  and  are  choked  with  cares  and  riches  and 
pleasures  of  this  life,  and  bring  no  fruit  to  perfection.  But  that  on  the  good 
ground  are  they,  which,  in  art  honest  and  good  heart,  having  heard  the  word,  keep 
it,  and  bring  forth  fruit  with  patience.'*  Luke  8:  11 — 15. 

On  this  we  observe—-!,  Christ  represents  that/owr  classes  hear  the  gos- 
pel, but  only  one  class  is  permanently  benefitted  by  it.  2.  Of  the  three 
unfruitful  classes,  two  so  far  receive  the  word  as  to  appear,  for  a  time,  to  be 
true  believers.  3.  One  at  least  of  the  unfruitful  classes  receives  the  word 
'  wUh  joy;'  i.  e.  has  a  bright  experience  and  seems  to  be  greatly  '  blessed.* 
4.  The  failure  of  the  word  in  the  three  cases,  does  not  prove  it  to  be  a  spu- 
rious gospeL  5.  The  falhng  away  of  the  two  classes  of  apparent  converts, 
does  not  disprove  the  security  of  those  who  receive  the  word  into  ^  good  and 
honest  hearts.* 

Again,  look  at  the  parable  of  the  net  t 

"The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  net,  that  Was  cast  into  the  sea,  and 
fathered  of  every  kind  :  which,  when  it  was  full,  they  drew  to  shore,  and  sat 
down,  and  gathered  the  good  into  vessels,  but  cast  the  bad  away*  So  shall  it 
be  at  the  end  of  the  world  3  the  angels  shall  come  forthj  and  sever  the  wicked 
from  among  the  just."  Matt.  13:  4t— 49. 

In  this  representation  we  perceive  that  the  gospel  draws  under  its  influence 
and  into  its  profession,  bad  men  as  well  as  good.  The  time  for  the  full  separa* 
tion  of  the  true  from  the  false  believers  j  is  not  during  the  dispensation  of  the 
gospel,  but  at  the  judgment,  This  truth  appears  also  in  the  parable  of  the  tares 
and  wheat.  The  order  of  the  husbandman  is,  '  Let  both  grow  together  tilt 
the  harvest.^  Along  the  whole  pilgrimage  of  the  church,  therefore,  previous 
to  the  judgment,  the  mischievous  works  of  false  brethren  are  to  be  expected* 
But  the  presence  of  the  bad  fishes  is  no  evidence  that  there  are  no  good  fishes, 
or  that  the  net  is  not  a  genuine  one.  The  tares  prove  nothing  against  the 
wheat  or  the  husbandman. 

II.  We  will  now  pass  in  review  some  of  the  facts  in  the  history  of  the 
primitive  church,  which  exhibit  the  truth  of  the  preceding  representations. 
Confining  ourselves  to  that  advanced  period  in  the  apostolic  age,  when  the  ful- 
ness of  the  gospel  was  certainly  known  and  preached* 

Paul  informs  us  that  the!re  were  men  in  the  church  who  *  caused  divisions 
and  offenses,  serving  not  Christ,  but  their  OTyn  belly,  by  good  words  and 
fair  speeches  deceiving  the  simple  ;'  (Rom.  16:  IT  ;)  that  there  were '  false 
apostles  J  deceitful  workers,  transforming  themselves  into  apostles  of  Christ ;' 
(2  Cor.  11:  13 ;)  that  there  were  '  false  brethren,  privily  brought  in,'  to 
spy  out  the  liberty  of  believers ;  (Gal*  2:  4;)  that  there  were  those  who 


Wt 


I 


FIERY   DARTS   QUENCHED.  46T 


preached  'another  gospel,'  and  so  ^  troubled'  the  church  that  they  were  wor- 
thy to  be  'cutoff,'  and  'accursed;'  (Gal.  1:  7,  5:  12  ;)  that  some 'preached 
Christ  even  of  envj  and  strife,  not  sincerely,'  but  to  injure  him  ;  (Phil.  1: 
15  ;)  that  '  many  walked  as  the  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ,  whose  end  is 
destruction,  whose  God  is  their  belly,  whose  glory  is  in  their  shame,  who 
mind  earthly  things  ;  (Phil,  3;  18  ;)  that  some  were  '  disorderly,  working 
not  at  all,  but  busy-bodies  ;'  (2  Thess.  3:  11  ;)  that  some  had  '  swerved' 
from  the  true  gospel '  and  turned  aside  to  vain  jangling,  desiring  to  be  teach^ 
ers  of  the  law  ;'  (1  Tim.  1:  6  ;)  that  Hymeneus  and  Alexander  '  had  put 
away  a  good  conscience,  and  made  shipwreck  of  faith  ;'  (1  Tim.  1:  19;)  that 
some  of  the  young  widoAVS  were  '  idle^  wandering  from  house  to  house,  tattlers, 
busy-bodies,  speaking  things  which  they  ought  not,  and  had  turned  aside  to 
Satan ;'  (1  Tim.  5: 13  ;)  that  some  had  been  corrupted  by '  the  love  of  money,* 
and  had  erred  from  the  faith,  piercing  themselves  through  with  many  sorrows  ; 
(1  Tim.  6:  10  ;)  that  at  a  certain  time  '  all  they  which  were  in  Asia  had 
turned  away  from  him ;'  (2  Tim.  1;  15;)  that  there  were  those  whose  ^  word 
would  eat  like  a  canker,  of  whom  were  Hymeneus  and  Philetus,  who  concern^ 
ing  the  faith  had  erred,  saying  that  the  resurrection  was  past  already,  and 
overthrew  the  faith  of  some  ;'  (2  Tim.  2:  17  ;)  that  there  was  a  sort  of  per* 
sons  who  '  crept  into  houses  and  led  captive  silly  women  laden  with  sins,  led 
away  with  divers  lusts,  ever  learning  and  never  able  to  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth  ;'  (2  Tim.  3:  6  ;)  that  '  Demas  had  forsaken  him,  having  loved 
this  present  world  ;'  (2Tim.  4:  10  ;)  that  'Alexander  the  coppersmith  did  him 
much  evil,  and  greatly  resisted  his  words  ;'  (2  Tim.  4:  14 ;)  that  there  were 
'  many  unruly  and  vain  talkers  and  deceivers,  who  subverted  whole  houses, 
professing  to  know  God,  but  in  works  denying  him,  being  abominable  and  dis^ 
obedient,  and  unto  every  good  work  reprobate.'  Titus  1:  10.  To  the  Corin* 
thians  he  says,  '  I  fear  lest  when  I  come  again  my  God  will  humble  me  among 
you,  and  that  I  shall  bewail  many  which  have  sinned  already,  and  have  not 
repented  of  the  uncleanness  and  fornication  and  lasciviousness  wdiich  they 
have  committed.'  2  Cor.  12:  21.  To  the  elders  of  Ephesus  he  says,  ^  I 
know  that  after  my  departing,  shall  grievous  wolves  enter  in  among  you,  not 
sparing  the  flock.'  Acts  20:  29.  He  prophesies  with  great  emphasis,  that 
'  in  the  latter  times  [i.  e.  of  the  apostolic  age]  some  should  depart  from  the 
faith,  giving  heed  to  seducing  spirits  and  doctrines  of  devils,  speaking  lies  in 
hypocrisy,  having  their  consciences  seared  with  a  hot  iron  ;'  (1  Tim.  4:  1 ;) 
that '  the  time  would  come  when  they  would  not  endure  sound  doctrine,  but 
after  their  own  lusts  should  heap  to  themselves  teachers,  having  itching  ears, 
and  should  turn  away  their  ears  from  the  truth,  and  be  turned  unto  fables.' 
2  Tim.  4:  3. 

Peter  forewarns  the  church  that  false  prophets  and  false  teachers  vfere 
coming  among  them  and  w^uld  '  privily  binng  in  damnable  heresies,  and  that 
many  should  follow  their  pernicious  ways,  by  reason  of  whom  the  way  of  truth 
should  be  evil  spoken  of.'  He  speaks  of  some  as  already  present  who  ^  walk 
after  the  flesh  in  the  lust  of  uncleanness,  and  despise  government,  being  pre- 
sumptuous and  self-willed,  having  eyes  full  of  adultery,  and  that  cannot  cease 
from  sin,  beguihng  unstable  soulSp     These  (says  he)  are  wells  without  water^ 


i:^ 


468  FIERY  DARTS  QUENCHED. 

clouds  tliafc  are  carried  with  a  tempest,  for  whom  the  mist  of  darkness  is  re- 
served forever.  For  when  they  speak  great  swelhng  words  of  vanity,  they 
allure  through  the  lusts  of  the  flesh,  through  much  wantonness,  those  that 
were  clean  escaped  from  them  that  live  in  error.  While  tlicy  promise  them 
liberty,  they  themselves  are  the  servants  of  corruption.'  2  Pet.  2. 

Jude  says  that '  certain  men  had  crept  into  the  church  unawares,  who  were 
before  of  old  ordained  to  this  condemnation  ;  ungodly  men,  turning  the  grace 
of  God  into  lasciviousness,  and  denying  the  only  Lord  God  and  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ;  filthy  dreamers,  defiling  the  flesh,  despising  dominion,  speak- 
ing evil  of  things  which  they  understood  not,  murmurers,  complainers,  walk- 
ing after  their  own  lusts,  speaking  great  SAvelling  words,  having  men's  persons 
in  admiration,  sensual,  having  not  the  spirit,  clouds  Avithout  water,  carried 
about  of  winds,  trees  whose  fruit  Avithereth,  without  fruit,  twice  dead,  plucked 
up  by  the  roots ;  raging  waves  of  the  sea,  foaming  out  their  own  shame ; 
wandering  stars,  to  whom  is  reserved  the  blackness  of  darkness  forever.' 

John  records  the  apostasies  which  had  been  predicted  by  previous  writers, 
and  says  ot  the  apostates,  '  They  went  out  from  us,  but  they  were  not  of  us.' 
1  John  2:  19.  He  warns  believers  against  seducing  spirits,  '  because,'  says 
he,  'many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  world.'  1  John  4:  1.  And 
again — '  Many  deceivers  are  entered  into  the  world.'  2  John  7. 

Christ,  in  his  message  to  the  seven  churches,  speaks  of  persons  who  said 
*  they  were  apostles  and  were  not ;'  of  others  who  licensed  '  fornication  ;'  of 
a  woman  who  pretended  to  be  a  prophetess,  and  taught  and  seduced  believers 
to  commit  fornication ;  of  some  who  had  '  a  name  to  live  and  were  dead,'  and 
of  some  who  were  '  lukewarm,  neither  cold  nor  hot,'  fit  only  to  be  '  spued 
out  of  the  mouth.'  Rev.  2  &  3. 

If  we  add  to  all  this  the  fact  that  even  the  honest  believers  in  the  primitive 
church,  during  their  novitiate,  were  in  many  cases  carnal,  prone  to  '  envying, 
strifes  and  divisions,'  and  that  some  of  them  fell  into  fornication  and  other 
grievous  sins,  so  that  it  was  necessary  that  they  should  be  delivered  to  Satan, 
it  seems  to  us  that  a  case  is  made  out  against  the  apostolic  gospel,  as  dark 
as  can  be  made  out  against  the  present  gospel  of  holiness.  May  we  not  say 
then  to  those  who  are  perplexed  by  the  errors,  follies,  and  apostasies  of  pro- 
fessed Perfectionists, — "  Beloved,  think  it  not  strange  concerning  the  fiery 
trial  which  is  to  try  you,  as  though  some  strange  thing  happened  unto  you. 
'No  temptation  hath  taken  you,  but  such  as  is  common  to  man.  The  same 
afflictions  were  accomplished  in  your  brethren  that  w^ere  in  the  world  eighteen 
hundred  years  ago.  The  gospel  then,  as  now,  was  a  net  that  enclosed  all 
kinds,  good  and  bad.  The  final  and  thorough  separation  of  the  tares  from 
the  wheat  was  then,  as  it  will  be  now,  the  business  of  the  day  of  judgment. 
"We  must  be  content  to  learn  wisdom,  and  patiently  trust  and  serve  God  in 
the  midst  of  '  perils  by  false  brethren,'  till  that  day." 

Let  us  consider  whether  the  desponding  inferences  which  Satan  would  have 
us  draw  from  the  disorders  and  apostasies  of  Perfectionists,  are  warranted  in 
view  of  the  facts  in  the  case  of  the  primitive  church. 

1.  The  false  gospels,  false  apostles,  false  brethren,  fornications,  dissensions, 
and  desertions,  which  marked  the  history  of  that  church,  did  not  prove  that  it 


FIERY   DARTS   QUENCHED.  469* 

had  not  the  TRUE  gospel.     This  will  be  admitted  by  all  who  believe  the  New 
Testament. 

2.  Neither  did  those  evils  prove  that  none  of  the  believers  who  were  sur- 
rounded by  them  were  born  of  God  and  saved  from  sin.  At  the  very  time 
when  '  all  Asia  had  turned  away'  from  Paul,  he  could  testify  boldly — '  I  am 
not  ashamed;  for  I  know  in  whom  I  have  believed,  that  he  is  able  to  keep  that 
which  I  have  committed  to  him.  I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  I  have  finished 
my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith.'  2  Tim.  1:  12,  4:  7.  In  that  last  dark 
hour,  when  antichrist  was  revealed,  and  many  false  prophets  went  forth  like 
w^olves,  not  sparing  the  flock — nay,  in  the  very  midst  of  the  '  great  falling 
away,'  the  testimony  of  John  was  as  clear  and  loud  as  ever — '  Beloved,  noiv 
are  we  the  sons  of  God — Ye  have  overcome  them,  because  greater  is  ho 
that  is  in  you  than  he  that  is  in  the  world. — As  he  is  so  are  we  in  this  world. 
We  knoio  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding, 
that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true  ;  and  we  are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ.'  1  John  3:  1,  &c. 

3.  The  delinquencies  of  the  carnal  part  of  the  primitive  church  did  not 
prove  that  there  was  no  security  of  holiness.  Wesley,  we  are  told,  '  for  six 
years  after  he  was  sanctified,  believed  that  eternal  obedience  was  secured; 
but  afterward  let  go  this  point,  on  seeing  numbers  who  professed  to  have  ob- 
tained perfection  fall  into  sin.'  But  we  might  ask  such  a  theologian.  Is  the 
experience  of  a  few  of  your  converts  the  measure  by  which  we  must  trim  the 
word  of  God  ?  Shall  the  unfaithfulness  of  some,  bar  the  security  of  others  ? 
When  we  see  the  plants  that  shoot  up  on  the  stony  ground  or  among  thorns, 
after  a  while  withering  away,  must  we  therefore  conclude  that  the  '  honest 
and  good  hearts'  have  no  certainty  of  bringing  fruit  to  perfection  ?  '  What 
is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat  ?  saith  the  Lord.'  Wesley  seems  to  have  thought 
that  the  chaff  ought  to  determine  doctrines,  and  measure  hopes  for  the 
wheat ! 

Paul  thought  no  such  thing.  He  certainly  saw  as  much  unstable  experi- 
ence, and  as  many  spiritual  bankruptcies  as  any  one  ever  did  ;  and  yet  his 
own  assurance  of  perpetual  holiness,  was  never  shaken.  '  Who  shall  separate 
us,'  says  he,  '  from  the  love  of  Christ  ?  Shall  tribulation,  or  distress,  or  per- 
secution, or  famine,  or  nakedness,  or  peril,  or  sword  ?  As  it  is  written,  For 
thy  sake  we  are  killed  all  the  day  long ;  we  are  accounted  as  sheep  for  the 
slaughter.  Nay,  in  all  these  things  we  are  more  than  conquerors,  through 
him  that  loved  us.  For  I  am  persuaded  that  neither  death,  nor  life,  nor 
angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  powers,  nor  things  present,  nor  things  to  come, 
nor  height  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature,  shall  be  able  to  separate  us 
from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.'  Rom.  8:  35 — 39. 

Nor  did  Paul,  in  the  confusion  which  Satan  raised  by  shuffling  about  un- 
stable souls,  lose  his  confidence  in  the  security  of  others.  To  the  Philip- 
pians  he  writes,  '  I  thank  my  God  upon  every  remembrance  of  you,  being 
confident  of  this  very  thing,  that  he  which  hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you 
will  perform  it  until  the  day  of  Christ.'  Phil.  1:  6.  He  says  to  the  Thcssa- 
lonians,  '  We  give  thanks  to  God  always  for  you  all,  knowing,  brethren 
beloved,  your  election  of  God.'  1  Thess.  1:  4.     And  again,  '  We  are  bound 


470  FIERY  DARTS  QUENCHED. 

to  give  thanks  always  to  God  for  you,  brethren  beloved  of  the  Lord,  because 
God  hath  from  the  beguming  chosen  you  to  salvation,  through  sanctification 
of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth.*  2  Thess.  2:  13.  When  dissensions 
arose  in  the  church,  instead  of  doubting  the  gospel  or  giving  up  the  security 
of  true  believers,  he  saw  in  those  very  dissensions,    agencies   of  good. — 

*  There  must  be  also,'  says  he,  '  heresies  among  you,  that  they  which  are 
app'oved  may  he  made  manifest.^  1  Cor.  11:  19.  When  Hymeneus,  Phi- 
letus  and  others,  apostatized  and  began  to  spread  corruption  among  believers, 
instead  of  allowing  their  fall  to  shake  his  confidence  and  shift  his  doctrines, 
as  Wesley  did,  he  enters  this  protest — 'Nevertheless  the  foundation  of  God 
standeth  sure,  having  this  seal.  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his.' 
2  Tim.  2:  19.  And  then  he  adds  an  illustration  of  the  situation  of  the 
church,  exactly  corresponding  to  the  parable  of  the  sower  and  of  the  net. 

*  In  a  great  house,'  says  he,  '  there  are  not  only  vessels  of  gold  and  of  silver, 
but  also  of  wood  and  of  earth,  and  some  to  honor  and  some  to  dishonor.' 
Ver.  20.  So  when  antichrist  was  revealed,  and  many  fell  away  from  the 
faith,  John  did  not  loose  heart  and  begin  to  doubt  the  honesty  and  securit}' 
of  all  around  him,  but  accounted  for  the  desertions  thus : — '  They  went  out 
from  us  ;  but  they  were  not  of  us :  for  if  they  had  been  of  us,  they  would 
have  continued  with  us :  but  they  went  out  that  they  might  he  made  mani- 
fest that  they  were  not  all  of  us.'  1  John  2:  19. 

If  we  are  to  reason  at  all  on  the  subject  of  security,  from  the  experience 
of  those  who  profess  holiness,  why  may  we  not  invert  Wesley's  argument,  and 
infer  that '  eternal  obedience  is  secured,'  because  some  have  not  fallen  away  ? 
If  five  fall,  and  five  persevere,  why  is  not  the  perseverance  of  the  latter  as 
good  evidence /(9r  the  doctrine  of  security,  as  the  fall  of  the  former  is  against 
it  ?  Nay,  if  a  hundred  fall,  and  only  one  perseveres,  does  not  the  experience 
of  that  one  prove  the  possibility  of  security  ?  If  a  hundred  iron  safes  are 
exposed  to  the  same  fire,  and  only  one  of  them  preserves  its  contents  unin- 
jured, the  case  of  that  one  demonstrates  that  iron  safes  may  be  made  fire- 
proof. 

But  arguments  from  human  examples  are  not  to  be  relied  on  either  way. 
"The  *  sure  foundation'  is  the  word  of  God.  It  is  certain  that  '  he  that  belie v- 
<eth  hath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemnation,'  not  because 
it  can  be  proved  by  the  experience  of  this  or  that  man,  but  because  the  Son 
of  God  has  staked  his  veracity  on  the  assertion.  It  is  certain  that  '  Christ's 
jsheep  will  hear  his  voice  and  follow  him,  and  that  no  man  shall  pluck  them 
out  of  his  hand,'  because  this  is  the  declaration  of  him  who  cannot  lie.  It 
is  certain  that '  he  that  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin,  for  his  seed  re- 
jnaineth  in  him,  and  he  cannot  sin,'  because  this  is  the  testimony  of  God's 
appointed  witness.  It  behooves  those  who  profess  faith  that  can  say,  '  Let 
Ood  be  true  and  every  man  a  liar,'  to  look  toward  these  assurances  of  God, 
and  not  tow^ard  the  experiences  of  man,  for  evidence  on  the  subject  of  security. 

To  those  who  are  disposed  to  look  with  wondering  perplexity  at  the  fall  of 
this  or  that  man,  who  was  once  regarded  as  a  spiritualist  of  the  brightest  ex- 
perience, and  to  ask,  '  How  can  it  he  that  such  a  one,  Avith  all  his  knowledge 
of  the  truth  on  the  subject  of  holiness,  the  second  coming,  &c.,  should  fal] 


FIERY   DARTS   QUENCHEB.  ^.  471 

back  into  the  love  of  the  world,  or  into  such  fooleries  as  Millerism  V — we 
would  say,  '  Why  stand  ye  gazing  (not  even  up  into  the  visible  heavens, 
but)  into  flesh  and  blood  ?  Turn  your  faces  toward  the  word  and  spirit  of 
the  living  God.  There  are  many  ways  to  account  for  these  Lucifer-plunges, 
without  calling  in  question  the  security  of  the  sons  of  God.  Perhaps  the 
man  you  have  in  your  eye  was  like  a  cloud  that  rolls  itself  up  in  the  glory  of 
the  setting  sun.  For  a  little  while  the  gorgeous  mist  displays  its  golden  folds 
so  wonderfully,  that  it  attracts  even  more  admiration  than  the  sun  itself. 
But  it  has  only  a  borrowed  light.  In  its  own  substance  there  is  nothing  but 
damp  obstruction  ;  and  when  the  sun  has  sunk  a  little  further,  the  glory  is 
gone — the  gold  has  become  a  dark  vapor.  We  have  often  noticed  that  mere 
reflectors  make  a  more  dazzling  show  than  the  lights  from  which  they  borrow. 
Why  do  not  those  who  wonder  '  how  it  can  be'  that  notable  Perfectionists 
fall  away,  ask  'How  can  it  be  that  the  seed  sown  on  stony  ground,  shoots 
up  so  thriftily  at  first,  and  then  withers  ?'  The  answer  of  the  Lord  is — '  The 
stony  ground  converts,  though  they  receive  the  word  with  joy,  have  no  root 
in  themselves.^ 

The  day  of  judgment  will  doubtless  give  us  to  see  more  clearly  than  we  can 
now,  how  nearly  the  devil  can  counterfeit  true  spiritual  experience  and  testi- 
mony, and  how  far  a  man  may  advance  in  gospel  knowledge  and  feeling, 
without  the  faith  of  Christ  in  his  heart.  But  we  may  know  enough  now  of 
the  mystery  of  human  nature,  to  satisfy  us  on  the  one  hand  that  mere  exter- 
nal appearances,  however  splendid  and  promising,  are  not  to  be  taken  as  evi- 
dences of  inward  faith ;  and  on  the  other,  that  the  falling  away  of  those  who 
put  forth  such  appearances,  is  not  to  be  taken  as  evidence  against  the  inward 
faith  and  security  of  others.  If  we  cannot  explain  how  certain  admirable 
manifestations  of  spirituality  are  consistent  with  subsequent  apostasy,  yet  we 
can  know  assuredly  that  the  apostates  never  heartily  believed  in  Christ — 
never  were  born  of  God :  for  the  record  is,  '  He  that  believeth  hath  everlas- 
ting life  ;'  '  He  that  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin,  for  his  seed  remain- 
eth  in  him:'  and  this  record  stands,  like  a  rock,  against  all  the  billows  of 
contradicting  experience* 


§  70.     THE  LOVE  OF  LIFE, 

As  the  life  of  man  is  the  soul,  the  love  of  life,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
expression,  is  the  love  of  the  soul ;  and  as  the  soul  in  the  present  state  of 
existence  dwells  partly  in  a  body,  the  love  of  life  as  a  whole,  of  course  in- 
cludes the  love  of  that  part  of  life  which  is  in  the  body.  One  who  truly  loves 
his  whole  life,  however,  will  love  the  bodily  part  of  it  only  in  a  subordinate 
degree.  He  will  not  regard  his  body  as  necessary  to  his  continued  existence 
and  happiness,  but  only  as  a  valuable  dwelling-place  for  the  present.  This 
radical  absolute  love  of  hfe,  which  goes  back  into  that  which  is  purely  spiritual 
and  fastens  on  eternal  existence,  holding  the  body  as  a  circumstance,  and  not 
an  essential,  is  a  passion  which  the  gospel  seeks  to  awaken. 

But  the  love  of  life,  in  the  usual  sense,  is  the  love  of  bodily  life.  Men 
w^hose  experience  has  run  altogether  into  corporeal  actions  and  sensations, 
w^ho  have  never  been  drawn  backward  into  consciousness  of  the  purely  spirit- 
ual parts  of  their  being,  have  little  or  no  conception  of  any  life  but  that  of  the 
body,  and  practically  account  death  the  end  of  existence.  Of  course  they  love 
that  part  of  their  life  which  is  in  the  body,  as  their  whole  life.  This  partial, 
false  love  of  life,  it  is  one  of  the  principal  objects  of  the  gospel  to  eradicate. 

Lust^  in  the  usual  evil  sense  of  the  word,  is  excessive  unruly  desire.  Mere 
desire  of  food,  money,  &c.,  is  not  necessarily  lust.  It  is  when  these  objects 
are  desired  in  a  degree  beyond  their  value,  and  without  due  reference  to 
other  interests,  that  the  passion  for  them  becomes  lust.  Now  that  love  of 
bodily  hfe  which  regards  it  as  the  whole  man,  is  palpably  excessive — dispro- 
portionate to  the  absolute  and  relative  value  of  the  object.  It  is  therefore  a 
lust  in  the  evil  sense  of  the  word — as  truly  so,  as  the  passion  of  the  drunkard, 
the  whoremonger,  and  the  miser.  Its  proper  place  is  among  the  low,  degra- 
ding, sensual  passions. 

In  order  to  ascertain  its  exact  place  on  the  scale  of  sensuality,  w^e  must 
take  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  philosophy  of  life.  Happiness,  which  is 
the  ultimate  object  of  all  love,  is  produced  by  the  conjunction  of  desire  with 
its  object.  It  is  not  the  desire  of  food,  nor  food  itself,  but  the  desire  and 
food  united,  that  produce  the  pleasure  of  eating.  Desire  audits  object  may 
be  called  the  subjective  and  objective  means  of  happiness ;  and  these  two 
classes  of  means  are  concerned  in  every  form  of  pleasure  of  which  man  is 
capable.  As  we  love  happiness,  so  we  subordinately  love  the  means  of  it. 
The  epicure  loves  food  on  the  one  hand,  and  his  appetite  on  the  other,  in 
proportion  as  he  loves  the  pleasure  which  he  finds  in  their  union. 

Now  all  the  objective  means  of  sensual  happiness — the  outward  material 
for  the  gratification  of  amativeness,  ahmentiveness,  and  the  rest  of  the  animal 
passions — are  procurable  by  money.  Hence  money  is  the  representative  of 
all  earthly  good,  and  the  love  of  money  is  equivalent  to  the  love  of  the  world 
as  a  whole.  It  is  a  concentration  of  all  the  various  passions  for  individual 
worldly  objects.  While  the  love  of  food,  beauty,  music,  equipage,  &c.,  are 
specific  passions,  the  love  of  money  is  generic,  including  them  all.    Hence 


LOVE   OP   LIFE.  473 

the  apostle  calls  the  love  of  money  the  '  root  of  all  evil,'  meaning  that  it  is 
the  central  generic  passion,  to  which  all  evil  desires  for  worldly  objects  are 
to  be  referred  as  branches. 

But  this  relates  only  to  the  objective  means  of  sensual  happiness.  If  appe- 
tite, as  well  as  an  external  object,  is  necessary  to  pleasure,  and  if  men  love 
the  subjective  as  well  the  objective  means  of  happiness,  the  question  still  re- 
mains— What  is  the  central,  generic  alFection,  to  which  all  the  affections  for 
the  various  specific  sensual  appetites  are  to  be  referred  ?  In  other  words, 
what  is  the  root  of  all  sensual  self-love,  as  distinguished  from  the  love  of  the 
world  ?  We  answer,  it  is  the  love  of  life,  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  expres- 
sion. As  bodily  life  is  the  stock  on  which  all  sensual  appetites  grow,  so  the 
love  of  bodily  life  is  the  stock  on  which  all  other  kinds  of  sensual  self-love 
grow.  The  love  of  hfe  is  to  the  subjective  class  of  means  of  happiness,  just 
what  the  love  of  money  is  to  the  objective  class.  As  money  is  the  represen- 
tative of  all  worldly  valuables,  so  the  life  of  the  body  is  the  representative 
of  all  susceptibihties  to  happiness  from  those  valuables.  As  the  love  of 
money  is  the  '  root  of  all  evil'  objectively  considered,  so  the  love  of  life  is 
the  '  root  of  all  evil'  subjectively  considered.  Life  cannot  make  a  man 
happy  in  the  present  state  of  the  world,  without  money  ;  and  money  cannot 
make  a  man  happy  without  life.  Money  and  life  are  the  necessary  complements 
of  each  other — the  father  and  mother  of  sensual  happiness  ;  and  the  love  of 
money  and  the  love  of  life  are  the  i^o  foci  of  all  sensual  affections. 

We  may  go  a  step  farther.  Strictly  speaking  the  love  of  Hfe  takes  prece- 
dence of  the  love  of  money,  and,  in  fact,  includes  it ;  for  life  is  more  abso- 
lutely essential  to  happiness,  than  money.  Life  is  the  '  post  in  the  middle.' 
Money  is  the  circumstance.  Dying  men  often  love  life  intensely,  after  their 
.  love  of  worldly  valuables  is  gone.  The  love  of  money,  traced  to  its  root,  is 
the  love  of  Hfe.  So  that,  on  the  whole,  love  of  bodily  life  stands  at  the  head 
-of  the  whole  list  of  sensual  passions,  subjective  and  objective.  It  is  the 
CENTRE-LUST  in  Carnal  human  nature. 

The  direction  of  Christ's  labors,  as  a  reformer,  was  exactly  in  accordance 
with  these  views.  The  strength  of  his  rebukes  and  exhortations  was  laid  out, 
not  on  the  various  specific  forms  of  sensuality  and  vice,  but  on  the  two  ge- 
neric lusts — the  love  of  money,  and  the  love  of  life.  To  those  who  proposed 
to  follow  him,  his  word  was — '  Leave  your  money,  and  follow  me  to  the 
cross.' 

In  his  warfare  with  the  love  of  life,  he  manifested  in  the  first  place  most 
unequivocally  that  his  hostility  was  not  against  bodily  life  itself,  but  against 
the  disproportionate  love  of  it.  He  took  upon  him  the  profession  of  physi- 
cian, and  went  about  healing  all  manner  of  diseases.  But  in  the  meantime 
he  taught  his  disciples  that  none  but  those  who  could  hate  and  forsake  their 
own  lives  could  follow  him  to  the  end.  '  He  that  loveth  his  life,'  said  he, 
'  shall  lose  it ;  and  he  that  loseth  his  life  for  my  sake,  shall  find  it.'  Finally 
he  proved  that  he  was  in  earnest  by  dying  himself.  His  cross  gave  a  death- 
blow to  the  centre-lust.  Before  that  blow  was  given,  his  followers  might 
have  begun  to  imagine,  from  seeing  his  power  over  diseases,  that  he  was 
about  to  put  an  end  to  the  death  of  the  body  immediately,  and  establish  bis 
59 


474  LOVE   OP   LlfB, 

kingdom  in  this  world.  Nothing  could  have  been  better  fitted  to  mortify 
such  imaginings  and  longings  of  the  flesh,  than  his  own  submission  to  death. 
He  passed  the  '  dark  valley,'  and  raised  his  standard  in  the  resurrection  ; 
leaving  his  followers  no  alternative  but  to  pass  the  same  way  into  the  king- 
dom for  which  they  hoped* 

During  the  whole  period  of  the  apostolic  age,  the  church  was  in 
a  school,  the  .  principal  lesson  of  which  was — '  Through  much  tribula- 
tion we  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.'  Persecution,  like  a  school- 
master, stood  over  believers  with  the  rod  of  martyrdom.  Paul  lived 
thirty  years  just  within  the  jaws  of  death— dying  daily,  and  yet  living.  All 
the  apostles  and  prominent  teachers  of  the  church  lived  in  continual  hazard 
of  the  fate  of  Stephen,  and  many  of  them  at  last  experienced  it.  The  whole 
church  which  had  the  honor  of  casting  down  the  accuser  and  beginning  the 
kingdom  of  God  in  the  first  resurrection,  are  described  as  those  who  were 

*  beheaded  for  the  witness  of  Jesus.'    Rev.  20:  4.      It  was  their  glory  that 

*  they  loved  not  their  lives  unto  the  death.'     Rev.  12:  11. 

God  has  placed  the  whole  human  race  in  circumstances  which  indicate  that 
one  of  the  principal  objects  of  his  administration  is  to  mortify  the  centre-lust. 
The  uncertainty  of  life  at  all  times,  the  certainty  of  death  at  last,  the  disea- 
ses which  assail  all  from  time  to  time,  the  terrible  agonies  which  are  the 
peculiar  lot  of  women,  and  the  perils  of  war  which  specially  fall  on  men,  make 
life  universally  a  school  in  which  all  may  learn  the  same  great  lesson  which 
Christ  prescribed  to  his  followers,  and  which  the  primitive  church  learned  in 
the  fires  of  persecution.  If  we  are  willing  to  be  taught  that  lesson,  we  need 
not  look  back  to  the  '  martyr  age,'  as  though  that  were  the  only  time  of  the 
death-trial.  It  has  been  the  '  martyr  age'  over  the  whole  earth,  ever  since 
Adam  sinned.  The  persecution  of  '  him  that  hath  the  power  of  death'  has 
raged  against  the  whole  human  race  six  thousand  years ;  and  every  man, 
^vomian  and  child,  has  opportunity  almost  daily  to  see  his  victims  bleed,  and 
to  learn  to  face  his  terrors. 

We  see  then  that  whoever  is  nourishing  in  himself  and  others  the  love  of 
bodily  life,  as  though  it  were  the  whole  or  the  principal  life  of  man,  and  rep- 
resenting it  as  not  only  innocent  but  commendable  for  men  to  make  it  an  im- 
portant and  even  paramount  business  to  take  care  of  their  health,  and  prolong 
their  lives,  is  laboring  to  contravene  the  manifest  policy  of  God  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  world— to  introduce  not  only  a  different  but  an  opposite  gos- 
pel from  that  of  the  cross  of  Christ,  and  to  stimulate  into  the  highest  possible 
prurience  that  very  central  lust  which  is  the  parent  of  all  others,  and  which 
more  than  all  others  needs  to  be  disciplined  and  crucified. 

The  physiological  reformers  of  our  times  seem  to  think  there  is  no  danger  of 
men's  loving  their  lives  too  much.  One  would  conclude  from  their  writings, 
that  health  is  the  '  one  thing  needful'—'  the  great  salvation ;'  and  that  in  the 
place  of  Christ's  saying,  '  He  that  loveth  his  life  shall  lose  it,'  we  ought  to 
substitute-^-'  He  that  loveth  not  his  life  with  tenfold  more  fervor  than  men 
generally  do,  shall  lose  that  and  every  thing  else  that  is  valuable.'  Self-de- 
nial and  cross-bearing,  with  them,  instead  of  being  a  denial  and  crucifixion  of 
the  actual  life,  is  eating  and  drinking  by  rule;  mortifying  some  of  the  grosser 
propensities,  and  enduring  a  life-long  struggle  to  preserve  health  by  obeying 


LOVE   OF    LIFE.  475 

the  natural  laws:'  i.  e.,  it  is  a  denial  of  the  branches  of  sensuality,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  root.  Now  we  fully  believe  that  a  man  who  has  passed  from 
the  ordinary  sensual  regimen  into  the  strictest  chastity  of  Grahamism,  if  he 
has  done  it  for  the  sake  of  saving  his  bodily  life  and  health,  and  has  contracted 
in  the  process  (as  it  may  be  presumed  he  has)  an  extraordinary  affection  for 
his  life,  is  really  a  more  sensual  man  than  he  was  before.  The  special  sins 
of  the  glutton  and  the  whoremonger  may  have  been  suppressed,  but  the  centre- 
lust  is  stronger  than  ever.  We  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  in  our  view  it  would 
be  far  better  for  a  man  to  have  bad  health  and  to  die  before  his  prime,  (if 
that  is  the  legitimate  result  of  '  seeking  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his 
righteousness,'  without  caring  for  the  questions — '  What  shall  we  eat,  what 
shall  we  drink,  and  wherewithal  shall  we  be  clothed  ?')  than  to  spend  his  days 
in  serving  and  disciplining  his  body,  and  in  studying  ways  and  means  to  make 
it  feel  the  best  and  hold  together  longest.  We  are  not  sure  but  that  war, 
(which  it  is  so  fashionable  to  deprecate  in  these  days,)  so  far  as  it  reduces  the 
love  of  life,  and  produces  in  some  a  semblance,  at  least,  of  the  noble  martyr- 
spirit,  has  a  better  moral  tendency  than  those  reforms  which  stimulate  the  love 
of  life,  and  convert  immortal  men  into  body-tenders. 

It  behooves  those  who  believe  that  health  for  the  body  as  well  as  for  the 
soul,  is  to  be  obtained  by  faith,  and  who  are  looking  for  another  manifesta- 
tion of  Christ's  heahng  power,  and  a  final  victory  over  disease  and  death,  to 
take  heed  that  they  fall  not  into  the  error  of  the  physiologists.  God  will  not 
serve  the  lusts  of  the  flesh ;  and  when  he  sees  that  his  gifts  of  healing  are 
drawing  attention  away  from  the  soul  to  the  body,  and  are  feeding  and  fatten- 
ing the  love  of  life,  he  will  certainly  withhold  them.  In  this  matter  it  will  be 
found  true  that  '  he  that  loveth  his  life  shall  lose  it.'  The  way  to  shut  out 
the  power  of  health,  is  to  crave  and  seek  for  it,  as  though  it  were  the  '  one 
thing  needful.'  And  the  way  to  admit  and  attract  that  power,  is  to  love  life 
and  health  only  according  to  their  true  value,  and  '  seek  first  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  his  righteousness.'  We  fully  believe  that  a  glorious  victory  over 
disease  and  death  is  coming.  But  we  also  believe  that  it  will  not  come  till 
the  love  of  life  and  health,  and  the  fear  of  death,  have  been  thoroughly  and 
permanently  reduced,  either  by  sufiering  or  by  faith,  to  their  proper  dimen- 
sions. 

As  '  the  sorrow  of  the  world  worketh  death,'  while  *  godly  sorrow  work- 
eth  repentance  unto  life,'  so  the  sufferings  of  the  world  increase  self  love,  but 
godly  sufferings  increase  faith  and  love  toward  God,  and  teach  men  to  ^count 
not  their  lives  dear  unto  them.'  Though,  under  the  devil's  reign,  it  is,  as 
we  have  said,  always  the  '  martyr-age,'  yet  it  must  be  remembered  that  they 
only  are  the  true  martyrs  who  voluntarily  and  joyfully  submit  to  suffering  and 
death  for  Christ's  sake.  When  disease  and  the  shadow  of  death  come  upon 
believers,  let  them  not  count  it  the  only  Avay  of  escape,  to  turn  their  backs 
upon  the  enemy  and  seek  from  the  Lord  or  from  medicine  a  recovery  of  health. 
There  are  two  ways  to  victory.  Death  is  theirs  as  well  as  life.  See  Rom. 
8:  35 — 39,  1  Cor.  3:  22.  And  death,  on  many  accounts,  may  be  '  far  bet- 
ter' than  life.  Fhil.  1:  21 — 23.  Let  them  joyfully  consent  to  conquer 
either  way,  and  leave  the  choice  to  God.  Let  them  turn  and  face  death. 
They  will  be  quite  as  likely  to  regain  health  in  a  spiiit  of  calm  willingness  to 


/ 


476  ABOLITION   OF    DEATH. 

die,  as  in  a  spirit  of  anxiety  and  fear.  And  if  God  deals  with  them  as  with 
sons,  he  will  surely  hold  them  in  the  presence  of  the  *  king  of  terrors,'  till 
they  learn  not  to  fear  him.  There  is  no  joy  sweeter  to  the  spirit  than  that 
of  him  whose  faith  has  fairly  triumphed  over  the  love  of  life,  so  that  he  can 
look  death  full  in  the  face  without  a  shudder.  It  is  not  the  anxious  love  of 
life,  but  the  free  and  joyful  spirit  of  martyrdom,  that  will  finally  drive  disease 
and  death  out  of  the  universe  of  God. 


§  71.    THE  ABOLITION  OF  DEATH. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  points  of  thought  in  relation  to  the  last  dis- 
pensation of  Christ,  a  point  which  stands  prominent  on  all  the  testimony  of 
scripture  concerning  it,  is  this  : — In  the  dispensation  of  the  fullness  of  times, 
THIS  WORLD  is  to  he  given  to  Christ.  Nothing  but  a  conquest  thus  extensive, 
can  fulfil  the  predictions  of  scripture,  and  give  propriety  to  the  great  drama 
which  will  then  be  finished.  The  angel  swears,  that  '  the  mystery  of  God 
should  be  finished,  as  he  hath  declared  to  his  servants  the  prophets.'^  What 
are  the  declarations  of  God  to  the  prophets,  concerning  the  catastrophe  of  this 
world's  history  ?  A  few  extracts  from  them  will  sufficiently  answer  this 
question. 

"It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  that  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's  honse 
shall  be  estabhshed  in  the  top  of  the  mountains,  and  shall  be  exalted  above  the 
hills ;  and  all  nations  shall  flow  unto  it.  And  many  people  shall  go  and  say, — 
Come  ye,  and  let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  to  the  house  of  the  God 
of  Jacob ;  and  he  will  teach  us  of  bis  ways,  and  we  will  walk  in  his  pathd  :  for 
out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem. — 
And  he  shall  judge  among  the  nations,  and  shall  rebuke  many  people  ;  and  they 
shall  beat  their  swords  into  plovv-shares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning-hooks : 
nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any 
more."    Isa.  2:  2—4. 

"And  in  the  days  of  these  kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  a  kingdom 
which  shall  never  be  destroyed  :  and  the  kingdom  shall  not  be  left  to  other  peo- 
ple, but  it  shall  break  in  pieces  and  consume  all  these  kingdoms,  and  it  shall 
stand  for  ever."    Dan.  2:  44. 

"And  he  shall  speak  great  words  against  the  Most  High,  and  shall  wear  out 
the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  and  think  to  change  times  and  laws  :  and  they  shall 
be  given  into  his  hand,  until  a  time  and  times  and  the  dividing  of  time — [the 
forty-two  months  of  the  Gentiles.]  But  the  judgment  shall  sit,  and  they  shall 
take  away  his  dominion,  to  consume  and  to  destroy  it  unto  the  end.  And  the 
kingdom  and  dominion,  and  the  greatness  of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole 
heaven,  shall  be  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  whose 
kingdom  is  an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  all  dominions  shall  serve  and  obey 
him."  Dan.  7:  25—27. 

"  The  Lord  shall  be  king  over  all  the  earth  :  in  that  day  shall  there  be  one 
Lord,  and  his  name  one."  Zech.  14:  9. 


ABOLITION   OF    DEATH.  477 

These  predictions  promise  such  mighty  conquests,  that  increduhty  has  ever 
treated  them  as  idle  tales  ;  and  their  fulfilment  has  been  delayed  so  long  be- 
yond the  overweening  expectations  of  those  who  forget  that '  one  day  is  with 
the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day,'  that  few 
dare  believe  more  than  that  they  will  come  to  pass  sometime  between  '  now 
and  never  .'  As  if  to  arrest  effectually  the  progress  of  unbelief,  and  fasten 
the  hopes  of  believers  on  something  firmer  than  the  shifting  quicksands  of 
conjecture,  '  the  angel,  standing  on  the  sea  and  on  the  land,  lifted  his  hand 
to  heaven,  and  sware  by  him  that  liveth  forever  and  ever,  that  there 
shall  be  time  no  longer — but  in  the  days  of  the  voice  of  the  seventh  angel, 
when  he  shall  begin  to  sound,  the  mystery  of  God  should  be  finished,  as  he 
hath  declared  to  his  servants  the  prophets.'  The  mightiest  oath  of  an  arch- 
angel, is  the  bond  by  which  we  are  assured  that  the  prophecies  above  quoted, 
and  all  like  them,  shall  be  fulfilled  in  the  dispensation  of  the  fullness  of  times. 
That  they  were  not  fulfilled  in  the  dispensation  of  the  primitive  church,  is 
manifest ;  and  on  the  supposition  that  that  dispensation  was  the  only  one 
predicted,  infidelity  might  properly  ridicule  the  vain  glorious  boasting  of 
scripture,  and  exult  in  her  blasphemies  of  the  God  of  heaven,  without  fear  of 
check  or  overthrow.  If  Christianity  fairly  measured  its  strength  with  the 
powers  of  hell,  in  that  first  encounter — if  it  has  done  already  its  destined  work 
in  this  world,  and  nothing  more  glorious  and  triumphant  is  to  be  expected 
from  it  than  has  heretofore  been  seen, — then  may  Satan  well  claim  a  victory 
over  the  Son  of  God ;  for  he  retains  his  usurped  possession  of  the  territory 
which  God  first  gave  to  Adam,  then  to  Abraham,  and  afterwards  to  Christ, 
in  spite  of  all  the  efforts  of  heaven  to  recover  it ;  and  all  that  has  ever  been 
done  against  him,  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  an  abduction  of  a  few  of  his 
prisoners.  But  if,  as  we  have  shown,  another  dispensation  is  predicted,  and  the 
conquest  of  this  world  is  reserved  to  grace  the  triumphs  of  the  last  campaign 
of  the  Son  of  God,  the  charge  of  premature  and  vain  exultation,  will  yet  be 
hurled  back  upon  the  head  of  infidelity.  Unless  God's  prophets  shall  be  con- 
victed of  false  prophecy,  and  his  archangel  of  perjury,  Satan  will  yet  be 
driven  from  this  world,  and  its  throne  will  be  given  to  Christ. 

We  have  ascertained  then,  that  the  dispensation  of  the  fullness  of  times 
differs  from  that  of  the  primitive  church,  in  this  important  particular,  viz  : 
one  was  a  period  of  suffering  in  this  world,  and  escape  from  it ;..  the  other 
will  be  the  period  of  the  conquest  and  recovery  of  this  world.  To  illustrate 
the  whole  idea, — suppose  a  ruffian  invades  and  takes  possession  of  another 
man's  house  in  his  absence,  and  holds  the  family  and  servants  of  the  owner 
as  prisoners.  To  effect  the  escape  of  all  or  of  a  part  of  them,  would  be  to 
them  and  to  the  owner  of  the  house,  a  matter  of  great  importance,  and  might 
be  the  first  object  of  attempt.  But  though  this  object  should  be  gained,  the 
fugitives  Avould  not  forget  that  they  were  escaping  from  their  own  house ;  and 
the  owner  would  never  cease  to  make  war  upon  the  usurper,  till  he  had  fully 
recovered  not  only  the  whole  of  his  family,  but  also  his  house  and  terri- 
tory. To  effect  this,  might  be  the  object  of  a  second  attempt :  and  should 
any  of  the  family  still  remain  prisoners,  at  the  period  of  this  second  encoun- 
ter, the  course  of  procedure  proper  for  them  would  materially  differ  from  that 


478  ABOLITION   OF    DEATH. 

which  the  former  occasion  demanded.  It  would  be  then*  business,  not  as  in 
the  first  affair,  to  prepare  for  flight,  accounting  a  mere  escape  victory  ;  but 
to  co-operate  with  their  friends  without,  in  taking  possession  of  the  house,  and 
making  arrangements  for  converting  their  prison  into  a  family  abode.  Such 
is  the  difference  between  the  position  which  God's  people  held  in  the  dispen- 
sation of  the  primitive  church,  and  the  position  which  they  will  hold  in  the 
dispensation  of  the  fullness  of  times.  The  world  from  which  the  primitive 
church  was  caught  away,  is  at  last  to  be  conquered  and  given  to  its  owner. 
Those  who  co-operate  with  Christ  in  the  coming  campaign,  will  have  hopes 
and  duties,  in  many  respects  different  from  those  of  the  soldiers  of  the  former. 
The  GLORIOUS  HOPE,  which  fills  the  foreground  of  the  prospect  of  those 
w'ho  wait  for  the  finishing  of  the  mystery  of  God,  is  presented  in  the  foUow^- 
ing  beautiful  passage  from  Isaiah : 

"  In  this  mountain  shall  the  Lord  of  hosts  make  unto  all  people  a  feast  of  fat 
things,  a  feast  of  wines  on  the  lees ;  of  fat  things  full  of  marrow,  of  wines  on 
the  lees  well  refined.  And  he  will  destroy  in  this  mountain  the  face  of  the  cov- 
ering cast  over  all  people,  and  the  veil  that  is  spread  over  all  nations.  He  will 
SWALLOW  UP  DEATH  IN  VICTORY ;  and  the  Lord  God  will  wipe  away  tears  from 
off  all  faces ;  and  the  rebuke  of  his  people  shall  he  take  away  from  off  all  the 
earth  :  for  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it.  And  it  shall  be  said  in  that  day,  Lo,  this 
is  our  God  ;  we  have  waited  for  him,  and  he  will  save  us  :  this  is  the  Lord  ;  we 
have  waited  for  him,  we  will  be  glad  and  rejoice  in  his  salvation."  Isa.  25:  6-9. 

This  passage  clearly  refers  to  the  dispensation  of  the  fullness  of  times.  The 
feast  spread  for  'all  nations ^^  and  the  removal  of  the  rebuke  of  God's  people 
from  off  '  ALL  THE  EARTH,'  are  events  which  manifestly  are  identified  in 
prophecy  w^th  the  dispensation  of  the  fullness  of  times.  '  He  will  swallow 
UP  death  in  victory  !'  Pious  infidelity  says,  this  saying  is  fulfilled  when 
Christians  have  a  comfortable  hope  in  death.  But  Paul  gives  his  opinion  thus : 

"  Behold  I  show  you  a  mystery  :  we  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be 
changed.  In  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump  :  for  the 
trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we  shall  be 
changed.  For  this  corruptible  must  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  must 
put  on  immortality.  So  when  this  corruptible  shall  have  put  on  incorruption, 
and  this  mortal  shall  have  put  on  immortality,  then  shall  be  brought  to  pass 
the  saying  that  is  written.  Death  is  swallowed  up  in  victory."  iCor.  15:  51-54. 

By  recurring  to  our  past  testimony  on  the  second  coming,  it  will  be  found 
that  Paul  speaks  here  of  a  translation  of  the  saints,  which  he  anticipated 
within  liis  own  lifetime,  and  which  actually  came  to  pass  at  the  end  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation  ;  so  that  that  part  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  wdiich  refers 
to  the  victory  over  death,  defined  as  it  is  by  Paul,  has  already  been  fulfilled 
in  individuals.  Resuming  the  illustration  before  given,  and  considering  the 
hody^  instead  of  the  world,  as  the  house  which  has  been  siezed  by  a  usurper, 
we  discover  the  difference  between  going  to  heaven  by  escainng  from  the 
body,  and  going  to  heaven  by  translation^  without  leaving  the  body.  One 
is  a  primary,  partial  victory ;  the  other  is  final  and  complete.  In  this  view 
of  the  matter,  death  was  swallowed  up  in  victory  at  the  second  coming  of 
Christ.     Yet  the  victory  which  was  thus  complete  in  respect  to  the  bodies  of 


ABOLITION   OF    DEATH.  479 

individuals,  was  only  partial  in  respect  to  tlie  territory  of  the  world.  Though 
the  primitive  saints  remained  in  the  body,  they  were  ^caught  awcuf  from  the 
world,  and  Satan  still  held  possession  of  their  mundane,  though  not  of  their 
corporeal  house.  Now  if  the  victory  of  Christ  should  proceed  no  further  in 
the  dispensation  of  the  fullness  of  times,  than  it  did  in  the  dispensation  of  the 
primitive  church,  our  hope  would  properly  and  necessarily  extend  to  a  full 
victory  over  death,  in  respect  to  the  bodies  of  individuals,  by  instantaneous 
change  and  translation.  But,  as  has  been  shown,  in  the  last  dispensation, 
the  kingdoms  of  this  ivorld  will  become  '  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  of  his 
Christ.'  Of  course,  translation  will  be  needless.  If  the  object  of  the  second 
war  is  not  to  recover  the  prisoners,  but  to  take  the  house,  those  who  remain 
prisoners  till  that  period  will  have  no  occasion  for  flight.  As  Paul  says  of 
the  second  coming,  '  We  which  are  alive  and  remain,  shall  be  changed,  and 
caught  iifp^- — it  may  now  be  said  of  the  third  coming,  '  We  which  are  alive 
and  remain,  shall  be  changed,  and  take  everlasting  possession  of  this  world.'* 
Mr.  Bush,  in  his  late  work  on  the  Eesurrection,  gives  his  view  of  the 
promise  that  death  shall  be  abolished  in  the  dispensation  of  the  last  days,  thus : 

"  *  There  shall  be  no  more  death,'  (Rev.  21:  4,)  is  merely  affirming,  that  in 
that  blessed  period  there  shall  be  an  exemption  from  all  those  evil  influences, 
physical  and  moral,  which  now  go  to  curtail  the  duration  of  human  life,  and 
hurry  thousands,  in  all  generations,  to  a  premature  grave.  Universal  temper- 
ance in  eating  and  drinking,  regulated  passions,  sobriety  of  aim,  moderation  of 
pursuit,  and  vigilance  of  precaution,  in  all  the  business  of  life,  combined  with 
strong  hereditary  vital  stamina,  great  salubrity  of  climate,  and  unknown  improve- 
ments in  the  arts  of  physical  well-being,  will  then  no  doubt  secure  to  men  a  term 
of  longevity  vastly  transcending  the  highest  hopes  which  they  would  now  dare 
to  indulge."    p,  327. 

For  the  support  of  this  theory,  (viz.  that  'no  death'  is  merely  h\o  prema- 
ture death,')  Mr.  B.  relies  exclusively  on  Isaiah  65:  19,  20,  which  he  iden 
tifies  with  Rev.  21:  4.     We  present  the  two  passages,  side  by  side : 

IsA.  65:  19,20. 
"  And  I  will  rejoice  in  Jerusalem,  and 


Rev.  21:  4. 


"  And  God  shall  wipe  away  all  tears 
from  their  eyes  ;  and  there  shall  be  no 
more  death,  neither  sorrow,  nor  crying, 
neither  shall  there  be  any  more  pain  : 
for  the  former  things  are  passed  away." 


joy  in  my  people  :  and  the  voice  of 
weeping  shall  be  no  more  heard  in  her, 
nor  the  voice  of  crying.  There  shall 
be  no  more  thence  an  infant  of  days, 
nor  an  old  man  that  hath  not  filled  his 
days  :  for  the  child  shall  die  an  hundred 
years  old  :  but  the  sinner  being  an  hun- 
dred years  old  shall  be  accursed." 

It  is  obvious  that  these  passages  very  much  resemble  each  other.  Mr. 
Bush,  assuming  that  they  are  identical,  first  shows  that  Isaiah  65:  19,  i^O, 
describes  a  state  in  which  death  indeed  exists,  but  is  so  far  curtailed  of  its 
power  that  one  who  dies  at  the  age  of  a  hundred  years  is  regarded  as  a  child, 
and  his  death  a  judgment  for  his  sins  ;  then,  transferring  this  construction  to 
Rev.  21:  4,  and  other  similar  passages,  he  argues  that  there  is  no  promise  of 
the  literal  abolition  of  death,  but  only  of  great  longevity  and  freedom  from 
premature  mortality. 


480 


ABOLITION  OF    DEATH. 


We  have  seen,  in  a  former  examination  of  his  writings,  that  he  has  a  curi- 
ous way  of  making  doubtful  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  interpret,  or 
rather  demolish,  plain  passages  in  the  New  ;  and  that  too,  with  the  acknowl- 
edged testimony  of  an  inspired  interpreter  against  him.  (See  pp.  360,  & 
361.)  We  trust  it  will  appear,  from  the  following  remarks,  that  the  present 
case  is  a  specimen  of  the  same  practice. 

The  reader  will  perceive,  in  the  following  parallelism,  that  Rev.  21:  4  is 
quite  as  manifestly  identical  with  Isaiah  26;  8,  as  with  Isaiah  65:  19,  20. 


Rev.  21:  4. 

"And  God  shall  wipe  away  all  tears 
from  their  eyes  :  and  there  shall  be  no 
more  death,  neither  sorrow,  nor  crying, 
neither  shall  there  be  any  more  pain  : 
for  the  former  things  are  passed  away." 


IsA,  25:  8. 

"  lie  will  swallow  up  death  in  victo- 
ry ;  and  the  Lord  God  will  wipe  away 
tears  from  oflt'  all  faces  ;  and  the  rebuke 
of  his  people  shall  be  taken  away  from 
off  all  the  earth  :  for  the  Lord  hath 
spoken  it.'* 

AVe  prefer  this  comparison,  as  a  method  of  deducing  the  meaning  of  Rev. 
21:  4,  to  Mr.  Bush's,  because,  instead  of  relying  on  our  own  judgment  or  on 
his,  for  an  interpretation  of  the  passage  which  is  to  be  our  guide,  we  can  be- 
take ourselves  in  this  case  to  the  testimony  of  an  inspired  interpreter.  Paul 
quotes  Isaiah  25:  8  in  1  Cor.  15:  51 — 54,  and  tells  us  plainly  what  he  thinks 
it  means.  '  We  shall  not  all  sleep,'  says  he,  '  but  we  shall  all  be  changed. 
....  So  when  this  corruptible  shall  have  put  on  incorruption,  [by  change 
without  death,]  .  .  .  then  shall  be  brought  to  pass  the  saying  that  is  writ- 
ten, Death  is  swallowed  up  in  victory.'  Here  is  none  of  the  exegetical  bathos 
of  which  Mr.  Busli  is  so  fond— no  sinking  from  '  no  death'  to  '  no  premature 
death' — no  talk  about  extraordinary  longevity,  exemption  from  violent  disea- 
ses, &c.;  (all  of  which  better  befits  the  semi-infidel  physiologists  than  humble 
students  of  the  word  of  God ;)  but  the  apostle  unmistakably  defines  Isaiah's 
victory  over  death,  as  a  bona  fide  abolition  of  it,  in  the  case  of  those  who  be- 
long to  Christ.  If  this  definition  is  the  true  one,  it  is  as  pertinent  in  the 
dispensation  of  the  fullness  of  times,  as  it  was  at  the  period  of  the  second 
coming ;  and  the  parallelism  between  Isaiah  26:  8,  and  Rev.  21:  4,  obliges 
us  to  conclude  that  the  latter  passage,  in  asserting  that  '  there  shall  be  no 
more  death'  in  the  New  Jerusalem  state,  means  just  what  it  says. 

Again,  in  his  remarks  on  the  words — '  Death  and  hell  were  cast  into  the 
lake  of  fire,'  (Rev.  20:  14.)  Mr.  Bush  says  : — "  This  passage  is  based  pri- 
xnarily  on  an  allusion  to  Hosea  13:  14  :  'I  will  ransom  them  from  the  power 
of  the  grave  ;  I  will  redeem  them  from  death  :  0  death,  I  will  be  thy  plagues ; 
0  grave,  I  will  be  thy  destruction.'  "  And  then,  as  if  entirely  ignorant  or 
contemptuously  reckless  of  Paul's  allusion  to  the  latter  passage,  he  transmutes, 
as  before,  this  destruction  of  death,  into  the  abolition  oi premature  mortality. 
'  Death,'  he  says,  '  in  the  sense  above  explained,  oi  premature  mortality^  is 
to  have  no  place  in  the  last  beatific  dispensation,  and  consequently  he  is  here 
[i.  e.  in  Rev.  20:  14]  represented  as  being  abolished  on  the  eve  of  its  com- 
mencement.' It  is  almost  needless  to  say  that  Paul,  in  his  manifest  apphca- 
tion  of  Hosca  13:  14,  in  1  Cor.  15:  45,  to  the  same  literal  abolition  of  death 


ABOLITION   OP    DEATH.  '  481 

as  that  to  which  he  applies  Isaiah  25:  8,  places  his  own  authority  on  this  point 
in  direct  opposition  to  Mr.  Bush's. 

The  simple  view  of  the  whole  matter  is  this.  It  is  acknowledged  on  all 
hands  that  the  second  advent  was,  or  is  to  be,  the  harbinger  of  a  literal  ex- 
emption from  death  on  the  part  of  the  then  living  saints.  Paul,  an  inspired 
apostle,  expressly  declares  this  bona  fide  victory  to  be  the  fulfilment  of  the 
two  most  notable  predictions  in  the  Old  Testament  concerning  the  abolition 
of  death.  Of  these  two  predictions,  the  promises  to  the  same  effect  in  Kev. 
20  and  21,  are  confessedly  the  echoes.  Those  promises  therefore  mean, 
Paul  being  judge,  that  death  shall  be  hterally  abolished  in  the  New  Jerusa- 
lem state  ;  and  Mr.  B's  interpolation  of  the  word  'premature^  is  proved  to  be 
illegitimate. 

Here  we  might  rest  the  case  without  going  into  any  examination  of  Isaiah 
65:  19,  20,  the  text  on  which  Mr.  B.  relies ;  for,  having  inspired  authority 
for  our  interpretation  of  Isaiah  25:  8,  and  Hosea  13:  14,  and  only  human 
authority  for  the  interpretation  which  sets  Isaiah  Qb:  19,  20  against  them, 
we  might  fairly  say  that  the  meaning  of  the  latter  passage  is  not  ascertained; 
and  things  doubtful  must  not  be  brought  in  against  things  certain.  But  as  it 
is  desirable  to  rid  ourselves,  as  far  as  possible,  of  all  embarrassments  from 
seeming  contradictions  in  the  word  of  God,  we  will  see  what  can  be  done 
with  Mr.  B's  stumbling-block. 

By  a  glance  at  Isaiah  65:  19,  20,  we  perceive  that  there  is  matter  in  it 
entirely  incongruous  wdth  the  New  Testament  descriptions  of  the  New  Jeru- 
salem. Paul  calls  that  holy  city,  '  the  Jerusalem  tvJiich  is  above,''  (Gal.  4: 
26,)  '  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  ;'  (Heb.  12:  22  ;)  and  in  connection  with  the 
last  designation  represents  it  as  the  abode  of  angels  and  'just  men  made 
perfect.^  It  is  therefore  clear  that  the  New  Jerusalem  is  not  something  to 
be  hereafter  instituted  de  novo  in  this  world,  but  a  post-mortal  habitation, 
long  ago  established  in  the  heavens — the  gathering  place  of  the  general  as- 
sembly and  church  of  the  first-bom,  into  which  the  primitive  saints  pass- 
ed from  mortality,  either  by  death,  or  by  change  at  the  second  advent, 
and  where  they  met  the  Father,  Son,  and  holy  angels.  What  has  such  a 
place  or  state  as  this  to  do  with  Isaiah's  account  of  people's  '  dying  a  hundred 
years  old?'  Are  angels  and  just  men  made  perfect  only  exempt  from  'pre- 
mature^ death  ?  Or  are  we  to  suppose  that  propagation  goes  on  in  heaven, 
and  that  the  children  of  the  saints  and  angels  '  die  a  hundred  years  old'? 

Again,  John,  in  his  special  description  of  the  holy  city,  and  in  the  very 
chapter  where  the  disputed  predictions  about  the  abolition  of  death  occur, 
says,  'tJiere  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  it  any  thing  that  defileth,  neither  ivhat- 
soever  tvorJceth  abomination  or  maketh  a  lie  ;  but  they  tvhich  are  written  in 
the  LamFs  book  of  life.^  Rev.  21:  27.  Whereas  Isaiah  says  that  in  the 
place  of  which  he  speaks,  *  the  sinner  being  an  hundred  years  old,  shall  be 
accursed.'  How  could  the  sinner  be  there,  if  it  is  in  the  New  Jerusalem  that 
the  prophet  is  describing  ?  A  sinner  dying  accursed,  and  dying  out  of  hear 
ven,  instead  of  out  of  this  world  into  heaven,  can  hardly  be  thought  to  be  one 
of  those  '  who  are  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life  ;'  and  none  else,  accor- 
ding to  John,  are  addmitted  to  the  holy  city. 
60 


4^2  ABOLITION    OF    DEATH. 

jFurthermore,  Isaiah's  language  diametrically  contradicts  Mr.  B's  0"wn  the* 
6ry  respecting  death  in  the  New  Jerusalem  state.  That  theory  is  that  ther0 
is  to  be  no  premature  death.  We  might  ask  whether  all  death  is  not  unnat- 
ural, and  in  that  sense  premature  ;  but  waiving  this,  let  us  see  if  Isaiah  does 
not  introduce  a  death  into  the  state  which  he  describes,  that  is  in  the  usual 
sense  and  emphatically  premature.  'The  child  shall  die  an  hundred  years 
old.'  The  meaning  probably  is,  that  one  dying  at  the  age  of  a  hundred 
years  shall  be  considered  a  mere  youth.  But  dying  in  childhood  is  certainly 
premature  death.  In  the  days  of  the  antediluvians  (who  are  the  patterns  of 
the  hopes  of  physiologists)  one  who  lived  only  one  or  two  hundred  years,  died 
Mong  before  his  time.'  ^ T^he  sinner  being  an  hundred  years  old^  shall 
he  accursed;''  i.  e.  his  death  shall  be  regarded  as  a  judgment  for  his  sins^ 
What  is  this  but  premature  death  ?  It  is  the  death  of  a  sinner^  who  (the 
scripture  says)  '  shall  not  live  out  half  his  days.'  It  is  death  under  a  curse ^ 
and  not  by  '  laws  of  nature.'  Thus  it  appears  that  if  we  are  to  take  Isaiah 
65:  19,  20,  as  our  guide  to  the  meaning  of  Rev.  21:  4,  we  must  conclude 
that  the  words,  '  there  shall  be  no  more  death/  do  not  promise  the  actual 
abolition  of  death,  as  they  are  generally  understood,  nor  even  the  abolition  of 
premature  death,  as  Mr*  B.  holds ;  but  only  some  indefinite  elongation  of 
human  life,  and  that  such  as  is  consistent  with  the  continuance  of  sin,  and  its 
curses.  Is  this  all  that  John  meant  we  should  hope  for,  when  he  drew  his 
glorious  picture  of  the  New  Jerusalem  ? 

The  unavoidable  conclusion  from  what  has  been  said^  is,  that  either  the 
meaning  of  what  is  said  about  dying  in  Isa.  65:  19^  20  is  not  yet  ascertained, 
or  the  passage  does  not  refer  to  the  New  Jerusalem  described  in  Rev.  21^ 
Our  opinion  is  that  the  true  reconcilation  of  the  two  prophecies  is  to  be 
found  in  the  following  theory.  The  New  Jerusalem  is,  as  we  have  seen,  a 
post-mortal  organization  long  ago  established.  This  organization  is  to 
be  revealed  ultimately  in  this  world.  '  The  New  Jerusalem  cometh 
down  from  God  out  of  heaven.'  Rev.  S:  12,  21:  2.  Its  distinc- 
tive character,  when  thus  revealed,  will  not  be  changed.  It  will  still 
be  the  sanctuary  of  angels  and  just  men  made  perfect,-^-a  state  entirely  ex- 
empt from  sin  and  death.  This  manifestation  is  predicted  in  Rev.  21.  Yet 
it  does  not  appear  from  that  prediction  that  it  will  at  once  (if  ever)  embrace 
the  whole  population  of  the  world.  On  the  contrary,  John  represents  it  as  a 
city  standing  in  the  midst  of  the  nations,  accessible  to  them,  and  shedding  its 
heahng  influence  over  them,  but  not  actually  including  them  within  its  walls. 
'  The  kings  of  the  earth  do  bring  their  glory  and  honor  into  it.'  Ver.  24. 
This  implies  that  it  is  a  capital  to  which  the  kings  of  the  earth  go  up,  and  not 
a  territory  comprehending  the  whole  earth.  '  The  gates  of  it  shall  not  be 
shut  day  nor  night.  .  .  .  And  they  shall  bring  the  glory  and  honor  of  the  na- 
tions into  it.'  Ver.  25,  26.  It  shall  stand  always  open  to  inhabitants  of  the 
World,  and  the  glory  of  the  world  shall  be  always  passing  into  it.  Yet  the 
prophecy  immediately  and  emphatically  adds,  that  '  there  shall  in  no  wise 
enter  into  it  any  thing  that  defileth,'  &c.  Ver.  27.  The  idea  is  that  of  a 
walled  city  in  the  midst  of  a  populous  country,  engaged  in  commerce  with 
those  without  its  walls,  and  receiving  into  itself  whatever  is  valuable  among 


ABOLITION   Ol"    DEATH.  488 

their  offerings  ;  but  vigilantly  excluding  whatever  is  worthless  and  pestilential, 
'  In  the  midst  of  the  street  of  it,  and  on  either  side  of  the  river  [of  life,]  was 
there  the  tree  of  life,  which  bare  twelve  manner  of  fruits,  and  yielded  her 
fruit  every  month ;  and  the  leaves  of  the  tree  were  for  the  healmg  of  the  na^ 
tions.^  Thus  the  nations,  though  not  actually  within  the  city,  receive  from 
it  a  health-giving  influence.  Leaves  from  the  tree  of  life  (not  its  fndt}  are 
sent  into  all  the  world.  Here  may  be  the  solution  of  the  doubtful  passage  iu 
Isaiah.  While  sin  and  death  are  entirely  excluded  from  the  true  New  Jeru^ 
sal  em,  yet  it  may  be  true  that  in  the  Kew  Jerusalem  dis2:)ensation,  that  part 
of  the  world  which  is  not  within  the  holy  city,  but  only  receivers  of  the  leaves 
of  the  tree  of  life,  will  be  blessed  only  with  the  longevity  which  is  described 
in  Isaiah  65: 19,  20  ;  i.  e.  the  partial  influence  of  the  vitality  that  reigns  in 
the  sanctuary  of  God,  will  so  far  overcome  death  in  the  whole  world,  (or  at 
least  in  the  literal  Jerusalem,  which  the  prophet  seems  to  have  in  mind  in  the 
passage  in  question,)  that  death  at  the  age  of  a  hundred  years.,  shall  be  con? 
sidered  premature. 

Whether  this  is  the  true  solution  of  the  difficulty  or  not,  it  is  clear  at  all 
events,  that  the  New  Jerusalem  is  a  resurrection-city,— -that  sin  and  death 
are  forever  walled  out  of  it, — that  it  is  ultimately  to  be  revealed  in  this  world, 
and  that  its  immortality  is  to  be  accessible  without  death,  to  those  Avho  find 
and  follow  '  the  way  of  holiness.'  'Blessed  are  they  that  do  his  command^ 
merits^  that  they  may  have  right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and  may  enter  in  through 
the  gates  into  the  city.^ 

HINTS   TO   PHILANTimOPISTS. 

We  hear,  from  time  to  time,  great  wailing  of  peace-men  and  sentimental 
ists  over  the  ravages  of  war.  Statistics  of  the  thousands  slain  in  specific 
battles,  and  of  the  millions  slain  in  certain  wars,  are  paraded  with  many  mel* 
ancholy  exclamations.  One  man  has  taken  pains  to  calculate  that  fourteen 
thousand  millions  have  been  killed  in  war  since  the  beginning  of  the  world. 
This  is  all  well  enough ;  only  it  is  a  contracted  and  somewhat  deceptive  view  of 
the  work  of  destruction  which  is  going  forward  among  mankind.  One  may 
ask.  Would  not  those  fourteen  thousand  millions  have  died  in  some  other  way, 
if  they  had  not  been  killed  in  war  V  Certainly  they  would.  War,  then,  only 
hastened  the  execution  of  a  sentence  of  death  which  was  already  impending 
over  them,  and  would  infallibly  have  been  executed  upon  them  within  a  short 
time  of  their  actual  death.  If  human  life  is  worth  any  thing,  and  death  is 
such  an  evil  as  it  is  represented  by  those  who  declaim  about  the  '  horrors  of 
war,'  (and  we  do  not  deny  it,)  why  should  we  not  extend  our  view  and  our 
sensibilities  beyond  mere  literal  war,  to  the  great,  world-wide,  perpetual  battler 
field,  where,  instead  of  fourteen  thousand  millions  slain  in  six  thousand  years, 
we  behold  eight  hundred  milHons  slain  every  thirty  years,  and  an  aggregate 
of  not  less  than  one  hundred  thousand  miUions  slain  since  the  beginning  of  the 
world  ?  We  see  no  reason  to  believe  that  consumptions,  fevers,  and  the 
thousand  other  forms  of  ordinary  disease,  are  a  whit  less  cruel  niessengers  of 
death,  than  bayonets  and  grape  shot.  We  admit  that  there  may  be  moral  evils 
connected  with  war,  greater  than  ordinarily  exist  in  society  at  peace.  Bu^ 
so  far  as  the  mere  matter  of  death  is  concerned,  we  see  nothing  that  very 


-^ 


484  ABOLITION   OF    DEATH. 

favorably  dlstinguislies  the  whole  world  from  a  literal  field  of  battle.  Indeed, 
if  men  did  but  consider  it,  the  great  life-battle  in  which  they  are  engaged,  is 
so  much  worse  than  common  battles  as  it  is  more  certain  that  every  individual 
of  them  will  be  slain,  sooner  or  later.  The  idea  that  ordinary  universal  death 
is  the  inevitable  result  of  the  laws  of  nature,  is  doubtless  that  which  makes 
men  comparatively  insensible  to  its  pre-eminent  horrors  ;  so  that  they  can  be- 
hold generation  after  generation,  over  the  Avhole  world,  cut  down  without  quar- 
ter, and  yet  make  no  outcry  or  effort  against  the  slaughter.  But,  if  the  Bible 
is  true,  universal  death  is  not  the  result  of  the  laws  of  nature,  but  of  sin. 
Men  are  as  truly  slain  by  wicked  violence,  committed  either  by  themselves 
or  others,  when  they  die  in  their  beds,  as  when  they  fall  by  the  sword.  It 
is  the  devil,  the  author  of  sin,  that '  hath  the  power  of  death  ;'  under  whose 
reign  eight  hundred  millions  perish  every  thirty  years,  and  in  comparison  with 
whose  ravages  all  the  slaughters  of  all  the  Alexanders  and  Caesars  and  Bona- 
partes  that  the  world  has  ever  seen,  are  but  as  '  the  drop  of  the  bucket.' 
A  '  peace  society'  that  should  turn  the  attention  of  the  world  to  the  horrors, 
not  merely  of  physical,  but  of  spiritual,  diabolical  war  ;  and  should  have  for  its 
object  to  subvert  the  empire  of  sin  and  the  devil,  and  establish  peace  and  alli- 
ance with  God,  so  that  death  may  be  abolished  altogther, — would  be  worthy 
of  its  name.  Peace  advocates,  in  declaiming  about  the  horrors  of  war,  while 
they  sound  no  alarm  and  make  no  efforts  against  the  universal  slaughter  of 
the  human  race,  which  goes  on  from  generation  to  generation,  are  chargeable 
with  '  straining  out  a  gnat,  while  they  swallow  a  camel.' 

This  hint  may  be  extended  to  other  laborers  in  the  field  of  philanthropy. 
Our  physiological  reformers,  in  common  with  patent  medicine  venders,  and 
physicians  of  all  schools — regulars,  Thomsonian,  and  homoeopathic — are  con- 
stantly pouring  forth  their  theories  of  health  and  disease,  with  glowing  de- 
scriptions of  the  salutary  results  of  following  their  directions.  One  would 
think  from  the  complacency  with  which  they  announce  their  discoveries,  from 
time  to  time,  that  they  had  actually  routed  the  old  tyrant,  death ;  or  at  least 
gained  a  victory  over  some  of  his  outposts.  But  after  all  is  said  and  done 
that  Grahamites  and  doctors  can  say  and  do,  death  reigns  with  universal, 
undisputed  sway.  The  most  that  is  effected  by  vegetable  diet,  bathing,  ex- 
ercise, pills,  emetics,  and  '  infinitesimal  doses,'  is,  a  delay  ot  the  dread  exe- 
cution Avhich  awaits  every  human  being  ;  a  relief  from  present  disease,  and 
possibly  a  reprieve,  extending  to  what  is  called  'old  age^  which,  in  fact,  is 
nothing  more  than  what  boyhood  was,  before  the  flood.  Indeed,  this  is  all 
that  is  expected,  or  aimed  at.  Now  we  admit  that  it  is  well  enough  to  strain 
out  as  many  gnats  as  we  can,  even  if  we  are  obliged  to  swalloAV  camels.  But 
we  object  to  boasting  over  such  achievements.  The  blaze  of  physiological 
discovery  and  improvement  ought  not  to  blind  us  to  the  truth  that  no  health- 
millennium  can  ever  come,  so  long  as  the  beginning  and  end  of  all  disease  re- 
mains in  undisturbed  possession  of  the  world.  We  ought  not  to  forget  that 
physiologists  and  physicians  can  be  nothing  more  than  respectable  quacks,  so 
long  as  they  aim  only  to  delay,  not  to  abolish  death. 

The  first  object  of  the  soldier  of  Christ  is  to  abolish  m  ;  but  this  is  not  the 
only  victory  for  which  he  struggles.  lie  is  engaged  in  a  rebelhon  against 
the  entire,  dominion  of  the  prince  of  this  world.    That  evil  being  employs 


ABOLITION   OF    DEATH.  485 

death  as  well  as  sin,  In  his  enterprise  of  establishing  a  perpetual  sovereignty 
over  man.  Seduction  on  the  one  hand,  and  destruction  on  the  other,  are  the 
twin-agencies  of  all  wicked  aspirants  for  power.  By  sin  the  devil  gains  pos- 
session of  the  soul,  and  so  insures  the  ultimate  surrender  of  the  whole  man  to 
his  dominion.  If  he  cannot  attain  his  first  object  of  beguiling  into  sin,  (as 
he  could  not  in  the  case  of  Christ,)  he  seeks,  as  the  next  best  advantage, 
the  destruction  of  the  body.  And  his  two  agencies  reciprocally  aid  each 
other.  As  sin  tends  to  death,  so  disease,  the  power  of  death,  fosters  sin. — 
^Notwithstanding  all  the  benefits  which  grace  is  able  to  extract  from  suifering, 
(which  are  many  and  great,)  we  are  persuaded  that  in  the  world  at  large, 
the  maladies  which  curse  the  bodies  of  men,  are  curses  also  to  their  souls. 
Nay,  we  believe  that  they  arc  more  fruitful  sources  than  any  or  all  other  ex- 
ternal influences,  of  selfishness,  tyranny,  fretfulness,  misanmropy,  intemper- 
ance, licentiousness,  idleness,  effemina^cy,  unbelief,  and  despair.  When  our 
reforming  philosophers  shall  have  dug  a  httle  deeper  into  the  causes  of  human 
wickedness  and  wo,  and  shall  dare  to  contemplate  the  death-system,  not  as  a 
fatahty  or  a  law  of  nature,  but  as  a  diabolical  oppression,  unnatural  and  re- 
movable, we  predict  that  they  will  find  that  ill  health  is  the  parent  of  more 
moral  corruption  and  imbecihty,  than  all  the  specific  vices  which  engage  the 
attention  of  one  class  among  them,  and  all  the  social  abominations  against 
which  the  other  class  is  struggling. 

In  accordance  vrith  the  view  that  the  reign  of  death  is  an  evil  second  only  to 
the  reign  of  sin,  Christ,  our  great  leader  in  the  warfare  with  the  prince  of 
evil,  directed  a  large  share  of  hi^  energies,  during  his  service  in  this  world, 
against  disease.  Wherever  he  appeared  in  combat  with  the  hosts  of  sin,  his 
blows  also  fell  thick  and  fast  on  the  powers  of  death.  The  demons,  not  only 
of  covetousness,  pride,  and  unbehef,  but  of  lunacy,  palsy,  and  fever,  fled  be- 
fore him.  He  submitted  to  death  at  last  himself ;  but  it  was  for  the  sake  of 
pulling  down,  Samson-like,  the  temple  of  Satan,  by  tearing  away  its  two  pillars 
— sin  and  death.  His  resurrection  was  a  decisive  victory  over  the  physical 
power  of  the  devil ;  and  the  gospel  which  thenceforward  went  forth,  based  as 
it  was  on  the  fact  of  his  resurrection,  was  glad  tidings  of  redemption  for  the 
body  as  well  as  for  the  soul.  The  message  of  the  apostles  was — '  Christ  is 
risen  ;  believe  on  him,  and  the  power  of  his  resurrection  shall  first  save  your 
souls  from  sin,  shall  even  now  begin  to  quicken  your  mortal  bodies,  and  shall 
ultimately  give  those  who  remain  on  the  field  till  the  second  coming,  immor- 
tality without  death.' 

In  our  own  labors  as  servants  of  the  gospel,  we  have  ever  been  led  to  keep 
our  eye  on  both  of  Satan's  strong-holds.  From  the  beginning,  we  have 
preached  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  the  radical  element  of  regeneration 
and  perfect  holiness  ;  and,  with  such  a  starting  point,  it  was  natural,  not  to 
say  inevitable,  that  we  should  be  interested  in  giving  scope  to  the  resurrection 
power  in  the  physical  as  well  as  the  spiritual  part  of  human  nature.  A  great 
variety  of  facts  in  our  own  experience,  have  constrained  us  to  recognize  from 
time  to  time,  the  close  relation  between  salvation  from  sin  and  salvation  from 
disease  and  death,  both  with  reference  to  the  nature  of  the  two  operations, 
and  the  identity  of  the  power  by  which  they  are  to  be  cj0fected.     The  expe- 


486  ABOLITION   OF    DEATH. 

rience  and  testimony  of  others  also — facts  which  we  have  witnessed,  or  of 
which  we  have  received  credible  accounts,  have  continually  attracted  our 
thoughts  in  the  same  direction.  From  almost  every  place  where  the  gospel 
of  holiness  has  been  sent,  an  echo  has  come  back  assuring  us  that  the  blessing 
of  emancipation  from  sin  has  been  attended  and  followed  by  an  improvement 
of  health.  The  witnesses  to  this  fact  are  wide-spread,  and  without  means  of 
sympathy  or  concert ;  and  in  many  cases,  the  physical  improvement  of  which 
they  testify  was  not  an  object  of  pursuit,  but  came  as  the  unexpected,  spon- 
taneous result  of  receiving  Christ  as  a  savior  from  sin.  This  general  mani- 
festation  has  deepened  our  previous  convictions,  that  the  resurrection  of  the 
soul  carries  with  it  an  incipient  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  tends  directly 
toward  the  final  change  from  the  mortal  to  the  immortal  state.  At  the  same 
time  it  has  been  a  cheering  certificate  that  we  are  indeed  preaching  the  true 
gospel  of  the  resurrection.  And  in  addition  to  this  general  fact,  we  have 
been  constantly  receiving  accounts  of  special  instances  of  recovery  from  dis- 
ease by  the  exercise  of  faith,  among  those  who  receive  the  gospel  of  holiness. 
All  these  influences  have  kept  alive  through  many  dark  and  discouraging 
circumstances  and  experiences,  the  flame  of  our  interest  in  the  physical  influ- 
ence of  the  gospel.  Yet  we  have  not  had  faith  enough,  or  presumption 
enough,  to  call  the  phenomena  which  have  been  presented,  miracles.  Much 
less  do  we  pretend  that  we  or  other  believers  are  insured  against  disease  and 
death.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  seen  some  of  our  best  soldiers  fall,  and 
disease  has  fastened  its  fang  on  many  who  remain.  Indeed  we  have  had 
abundant  reason  to  know  that  ill  health  has  been,  and  is  still,  the  heaviest 
incubus  that  presses  on  the  energies  of  our  cause.  But  after  all,  we  have 
evidence  which  we  could  not  thrust  out  of  sight  if  we  would,  that  God  is  car* 
rying  on  a  steady,  long-continued  war  with  the  power  of  death,  in  connection 
with  the  gospel  of  salvation  from  sin.  The  result  in  individual  instances  de* 
termines  nothing  in  regard  to  the  general  issue.  There  is  such  a  thing  as 
dying  for  the  right  to  live  ;  and  the  efforts  of  those  now  engaged  in  the  con- 
flict with  death,  may  secure  that  right  to  others,  if  not  to  themselves.  Our 
confidence  in  the  truth  that  salvation  from  sin  is  leading  on  to  the  victory  over 
death,  and  our  courage  to  hold  up  that  truth  before  heaven  and  earth,  grows 
with  our  growth  and  strengthens  with  our  strength. 


§72.    CONDENSATION  OF  LIFK 

Christ  disclosed,  in  his  last  prayer  with  his  disciples,  the  inner  mystery 
of  his  scheme  for  making  known  to  men  his  divine  character  and  mission  and 
for  conquering  the  world.  It  appears  from  the  language  of  that  prayer,  that 
his  ultimate  rehance  was  not  on  the  excellence  of  his  doctrines,  nor  on  his 
physical  miracles,  nor  on  the  preaching  and  writing  of  his  followers.  His 
anxiety  was  not  that  they  who  believed  on  him  should  become  zealous  and  im- 
portunate in  direct  assaults  on  the  kingdom  of  darkness.  He  evidently  did  not 
expect  to  establish  his  character  in  the  world  by  words  and  works  of  propaga^ 
tion,  after  the  manner  of  those  who  give  more  of  their  strength  to  proselyting 
labors,  than  to  internal  culture.  His  last  and  most  earnest  petition  for  his 
followers  w^as— '  That  they  all  may  be  one  ;  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and 
I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us ;  that  the  tvorld  may  know  that 
thou  hast  sent  me  f  and  he  adds — '  The  glory  which  thou  gavest  me,  I  have 
given  them,  that  they  may  he  one^  even  as  we  are  one :  I  in  them,  and  thou 
in  me,  that  they  may  be  made  perfect  in  one  ;  and  that  the  world  may  know 
that  thou  hast  sent  me,  and  hast  loved  them  as  thou  hast  loved  meJ  John 
17:  21—23. 

The  idea  of  Christ  manifestly  was,  that  the  spiritual  unity  of  believers  with 
himself  and  his  Father,  and  with  each  other,  and  the  perfection  which  would 
thence  result,  would  make  that  effectual  impression  on  the  world,  which  was 
the  object  of  his  mission,  and  which  no  preaching  or  miracles  or  outgoing 
works  could  secure.  This  idea  deserves  much  consideration.  Let  us  en- 
deavor to  understand  the  philosophy  of  this  unity,  and  the  nature  of  its  op- 
eration on  believers,  and  on  the  world. 

In  spite  of  the  logic  of  the  anti-materiahsts,  who  would  reduce  spirits  to 
nonentities,  the  Bible  compels  us  to  think  and  speak  of  life  as  an  actual  sub* 
stance.  We  take  the  liberty  to  affirm,  (appealing  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
New  Testament  and  to  every  believer's  consciousness  for  evidence,)  that 
personal  spirits  are  real  things,  having  interiors  and  exteriors,  attractions, 
receptivities,  and  capacities  for  combination.  When  it  is  said  that '  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son  are  one,'  we  understand  this  in  no  figurative,  mystical,  or 
unreal  sense,  but  in  a  sense  as  substantial  and  as  clear  as  that  in  which  we 
understand  that  the  Siamese  twins  are  one.  The  Father  and  the  Son,  though 
they  are  spirits,  are  two  substances,  joined,  intermixed,  combined,  as  really 
as  hght  and  heat  are  combined  in  a  sunbeam.  Their  union  does  not  destroy 
their  distinct  personality,  for  it  will  be  observed  that  in  the  passage  we  have 
quoted  from  Christ's  prayer,  it  is  assumed  that  the  union  of  believers  with 
God  and  with  each  other  is  to  be  precisely  the  same  as  the  union  of  the  Fa^ 
ther  and  the  Son — a  decisive  testimony  that  the  Father  and  the  Son,  though 
one,  are  distinct  persons — unless  indeed  we  go  so  far  as  to  deny  that  behe vera 
will  retain  their  distinctness  of  persons  in  their  final  unity.  Our  idea  is,  that 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  though  distinct  persons,  are  present  not  only  to  each 
other,  but  2vithin  each  other — that  their  lives  are  not  like  solids,  capable  only 


488  CONDENSATION   OF    LIFE. 

of  lateral  contact,  but  like  fluids,  or  like  the  imponderable  elements,  pervading 
each  other  in  the  most  intimate  combination  possible. 

We  have  said  that  spirits  have  interiors  and  exteriors.  From  this  it  results 
that  individual  spirits  are  capable  of  two  distinct  forms  of  compaction.  They 
may  be  filled^  and  they  may  be  enveloped.  As  the  two  great  wants  of  the  body 
are  food  and  clothing,  or  nourishment  of  the  life,  and  good  surroundings,  so  the 
two  great  wants  of  spirits  are,  to  be  filled,  and  to  be  enveloped  with  conge- 
nial life.  These  two  wants  are  the  grounds  of  all  specific  desires  and  passions. 
Every  susceptibility  and  every  form  of  enjoyment,  may  be  referred  either  to 
the  interior  or  to  the  exterior  want  of  life.  The  interior  want,  or  the  de- 
sire to  be  filled  with  life,  is  necessarily  also  a  desire  to  envelop  life  ;  and  on 
the  other  hand,  the  exterior  want,  or  the  desire  to  be  enveloped  with  life,  is 
also  necessarily  a  desire  to  fill  life.  These  two  generic  forms  of  desire  are 
symbolized  in  the  organizations  of  the  sexes.  The  desire  to  be  filled  and  to 
envelop,  is  female.  The  desire  to  be  enveloped  and  to  fill,  is  male.  Love, 
in  its  highest  form,  is  the  reciprocal  and  satisfied  attraction  of  these  two 
forms  of  desire. 

The  fact  that  life  has  interiors  and  exteriors,  and  corresponding  attractions, 
is  that  which  makes  it  possible  that  one  life  should  dwell  in  another.  If  spir- 
its had  but  one  surface,  and  were  either  all  male  or  all  female  in  their  capa- 
cities and  attractions,  external  juxtaposition  only  would  be  possible.  But 
the  universe  of  life,  as  it  is,  male  and  female,  is  capable  of  concentric  infold- 
ings  and  perfect  unity.  To  begin  with  the  highest  forms  of  life,  the  Father 
and  the  Son  are  concentric  spiritual  spheres.  Their  relations  to  each  other 
are  those  of  male  and  female.  The  Father  fills  the  Son  and  is  enveloped  by 
him.  The  Son  envelopes  the  Father  and  is  filled  by  him.  Though  in  a 
subordinate  sense  it  is  true  that  each  fills  and  each  envelopes  the  other — 
that  the  Son  dwells  in  the  Father  as  well  as  the  Father  in  the  Son,  (for  to  a 
certain  extent  in  all  combinations  of  spirits  there  is  an  interchange  of  relations 
and  func  Lions,) — yet  in  a  general  sense  it  is  evident  from  scripture  that  the 
Father  is  the  interior  life  and  the  Son  the  exterior.  Thus  in  the  prayer  of 
Christ  the  order  of  indwelling  is  indicated  in  these  words — *  That  they  may 
be  one  as  we  are  one  ;  Tin  them,  and  thou  in  nxe.^  The  Father  is  the  in- 
dwelling life  of  the  Son,  as  the  Son  is  the  indwelling  life  of  believers.  That 
the  relation  of  the  Father  to  the  Son  is  that  of  interior  to  exterior,  or  male 
to  female,  appears  also  from  these  words  of  Paul — '  The  head  of  every  man 
is  Christ,  and  the  head  of  the  woman  is  the  man,  and  the  head  of  Christ  is 
God.^  1  Cor.  11:  13.  It  is  obvious  that  in  all  combinations,  the  interior  life 
must  be  more  compact  and  therefore  stronger  than  the  exterior.  The  female 
capacity  is  in  its  very  nature  negative.  Weakness  makes  room  for  strength. 
Deficiency  embraces  fullness.  Hence  the  Father  takes  precedence  of  the 
Son.     '  My  Father,'  says  Christ,  '  is  greater  than  I.' 

The  end  for  which  Christ  prayed,  was,  that  the  unity  which  thus  exists  at 
the  centre  of  all  life,  might  be  extended  to  the  spirits  of  all  who  should  be- 
lieve on  him.  He  came  into  the  Avorld  that  he  might  begin  this  work  of 
concentration,  by  introducing  himself  into  the  interiors  of  men.  To  the  Father 
he  is  the  exterior  or  female  life,  but  to  man  he  is  the  interior  or  male  life. 


CONDENSATION   OP    LIFE.  489 

The  life  of  the  Father  is  the  only  spninol  plenum  ;  i.  e.,  he  only  is  filled 
with  his  own  life.  In  him  alone,  the  interior  want  is  supplied  from  his  own 
resources.  The  Son  is  filled  with  the  fullness  of  the  Father,  interiorly,  and 
he  seeks  in  man  exterior  envelopment.  And  so  in  the  whole  succession  of 
infoldings  from  the  father  outward,  each  spirit  or  sphere  of  spirits  is  filled 
by  a  more  central  life,  and  enveloped  by  a  more  external  life  ;  i.  e.,  each  life 
is  female  to  the  life  in  advance  of  it  toward  the  centre,  and  male  to  the  life 
behind  it  toward  the  circumference. 

Let  us  here  glance  at  some  of  the  representations  which  the  New  Testament 
gives  of  the  relation  between  Christ  and  believers.  '  As  the  living  Father 
hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  him,  so  he  that  eatethme  shall  live  by  me.'  Jno. 
6:  57.  '  If  Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  is  dead,'  &c.  Rom.  8:  10.  '  Know 
ye  not  that  your  bodies  are  the  members  of  Christ  ?  shall  I  then  take  the 
members  of  Christ,  and  make  them  the  members  of  an  harlot  ?  God  forbid  ! 
What !  know  ye  not  that  he  which  is  joined  to  an  harlot  is  one  body  ?  for  two, 
saith  he,  shall  be  one  flesh.  But  he  that  is  joined  unto  the  Lord  is  one  spirit.' 
1  Cor.  6:  15 — 17.  '  Ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  particular.' 
1  Cor.  12:  27.  •  Know  ye  not  your  own  selves,  how  that  Jesus  Christ  is  in 
you,  except  ye  be  reprobates  V  2  Cor.  13:  5.  '  I  live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ 
liveth  in  me.'  Gal.  2:  20.  '  That  Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts  by  faith  ; 
that  ye  may  be  filled  with  all  the  fullness  of  God.'  Eph.  3:  17, 19.  '  We  are 
members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones.  For  this  cause  shall  a 
man  leave  father  and  mother,  and  shall  be  joined  unto  his  wife  ;  and  they  two 
shall  be  one  flesh.  This  is  a  great  mystery ;  but  I  speak  concerning  Christ 
and  the  church.'  Eph.  5:  30 — 32.  '  The  mystery  which  hath  been  hid  from 
ages  and  from  generations,  but  now  is  made  manifest  to  his  saints :  to  vvhom 
God  would  make  known  what  is  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  this  mystery  among 
the  Gentiles  ;  which  is  Christ  in  you  the  hope  of  glory.'  Col.  1:  26,  27. 

It  is  observable  that  Paul  has  two  favorite  symbols  of  the  relation  of  Christ 
to  believers.  He  represents  the  church  on  the  one  hand  as  the  bodz/  of 
Christ,  and  on  the  other  as  his  bride.  In  the  first  case  the  idea  is,  that  Christ 
is  in  the  church  as  the  soul  is  in  the  body ;  and  in  the  second  case  the  same 
idea  is  preserved  by  representing  the  wife  as  the  complement  of  the  husband 
— bone  of  his  bone  and  flesh  of  his  flesh, — according  to  the  saying,  '  they 
twain  shall  be  one  flesh.'  And  since  the  man  is  really  within  the  woman,  in 
the  true  spiritual  union  of  the  sexes,  as  the  soul  is  in  the  body,  it  is  evident 
that  the  two  representations  are  substantially  identical,  while  the  marriage 
symbol  has  this  advantage  of  the  other,  that  it  sets  forth  the  union  of  distinct 
persons,  which  the  relation  of  soul  and  body  does  not.  Indeed  on  this  account 
the  marriage  relation,  as  it  is  partially  expressed  in  externals,  and  as  it  exists 
fully  in  the  spiritual  sphere,  is  a  more  perfect  illustration  of  the  unity  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  and  of  the  Son  and  the  church,  than  any  other.  In 
common  thought,  eating,  drinking,  and  immersion,  (which  are  among  the  New 
Testament  illustrations  of  the  union  of  believers  with  Christ,)  only  conjoin  a 
person  to  a  thing — life  to  matter.  But  marriage  conjoins  two  persons — life 
to  life  ;  and  that  is  the  form  of  conjunction  which  exists  in  all  the  central  unities. 

We  have,  then,  an  idea  of  the  two  primary  combinations  of  life — the  unity 
61 


i 


490  CONDENSATtON  OF    LIFE. 

of  the  Father  with  the  Son,  and  of  the  Son  with  the  church.     It  remains  to 
complete  the  view,  by  looking  at  the  unity  of  believers  with  each  other.     The 

Erayer— '  that  they  all  may  be  one  even  as  we  are  one'— implies  on  the  one 
and  that  men  in  the  carnal  state  are  separate  and  isolated  in  spirit,  and  on 
the  other,  that  it  is  possible  for  them  to  enter  into  that  perfect  unity  with 
each  other  which  exists  in  the  Godhead*  It  is  safe  to  conceive  of  all  the 
friendship  and  fellowship  which  is  known  in  the  world  of  selfishness,  as  mere 
lateral,  superficial  contact.  Where  there  is  sin,  there  is  necessarily  a  cold, 
dark  reserve  around  the  centre  of  life,  which  makes  perfect  entrance  and  in- 
folding impossible.  We  have  fellowship  or  absolute  community  [koinonia] 
wdth  each  other^  only  when  *  we  walk  in  the  light  as  God  is  in  the  light ;'  and 
we  thus  walk  in  the  light  only  when  '  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  us 
from  all  sin.'  See  1  John  1:  7.  It  is  obviously  impossible  in  the  nature  of 
things  that  the  unity  which  w^e  have  defined  should  take  place  any  farther 
than  there  is  a  perfect  willingness  in  individuals  to  sacrifice  self-conceit,  and 
fall  into  the  order  of  combination  which  the  intrinsic  spiritual  value  and  ca- 
pacity of  each  appoints.  A  series  of  boxes  may  be  placed  together  laterally 
without  settling  the  question  of  precedence.  But  if  they  are  to  be  reduced 
to  unity  by  being  placed  within  each  other,  the  order  of  their  capacities  must 
be  ascertained.  The  inveterate  hankering  of  the  uncircumcised  heart  for 
precedence  or  equality  may  be  consistent  with  the  superficial  combinations  of 
this  world,  but  not  with  the  unity  of  heaven.  Before  that  can  be  attained 
every  spirit  must  rejoice  to  be  not  only  male  to  a  sphere  without,  but  female 
to  a  sphere  within.  In  the  whole  succession  of  spirits  the  '  weaker  vessels' 
must  consent  to  be  filled  by  the  stronger. 

We  will  not  undertake  here  to  bring  to  view  the  whole  code  of  laws  which 
tQust  determine  the  combinations  of  individual  spirits,  but  we  will  glance  at  two 
or  three  of  the  more  comprehensive  principles  of  heavenly  order.  1.  The  dis- 
tinction of  male  and  female  creates  a  dualty  consisting  of  an  inner  and  outer 
life.  As  the  Father  is  the  inner  fullness  of  Christ,  and  as  Christ  is  the  inner 
fullness  of  the  universal  sphere  of  the  redeemed,  so  man  is  the  inner  fullness 
of  woman.  This  is  said,  not  of  the  relations  of  individual  men  and  women, 
but  of  the  relation  of  the  whole  man-spirit  to  the  whole  woman-spirit.  2.  The 
division  of  the  church  by  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  dispensations,  creates  an- 
other great  dualty.  The  '  church  of  the  first-born'  will  be  the  husband  or 
interior  sphere  of  the  church  of  the  second  resurrection.  3.  The  same  dual 
relation  will  exist  between  each  spiritual  laborer  and  that  branch  of  the  church 
which  he  has  won  to  Christ.  These  may  serve  as  examples  of  an  infinite  se- 
ries and  variety  of  combinations,  by  which  believers  will  be  compacted  and 
*  knit  together. 

The  end  will  be,  infinite  repeatings  and  variations  of  the  harmony 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  and  God  and  man,  male  and  female, 
Jew  and  Gentile,  great  and  small,  will  be  one.  This  is  what  we  mean  by  the 
Condensation  of  Life, 

The  generic  effect  of  the  unity  for  which  Christ  prayed,  will  be  to  increase 
the  power  of  life  in  the  whole  body  of  behevers,  and  in  individuals.  The 
advantages  of  compact  external  organization  in  the  various  physical  enterpriser 


CONDENSATION   OP    LIFE.  491 

of  commerce,  war,  &c.,  are  well  known.  Bat  the  world  knows  little  of  the 
energy  which  will  result  from  the  organization  of  spirits.  In  the  first  place, 
when  the  Father  and  tlie  Son,  man  and  woman,  Jew  and  Gentile,  shall  be- 
come one  by  successive  infoldings,  the  entire  power  and  wisdom  of  the  God- 
head will  be  freely  developed  in  every  spirit  which  belongs  to  the  great  unit. 
Spiritual  power  applied  by  external  baptism,  and  working  from  the  circum- 
ference toward  the  centre,  (which  must  be  its  form  of  action  while  intercourse 
is  lateral,)  can  produce  but  small  results,  in  comparison  with  those  which  are 
to  be  expected  when  life  shall  act  in  life,  when  God  shall  become  in  very 
deed  the  soul  of  the  church,  and  shall  distribute  his  energies  from  the  centre  ^/ 
outward,  as  the  heart  sends  its  power  into  all  the  extremities  of  the  body. 

In  the  next  place,  the  condensation  of  life  which  we  have  defined,  will  efiect 
a  transfer  and  distribution  of  all  that  is  good  in  human  nature,  which  will 
make  the  gains  of  all  past  generations  and  the  stores  of  the  invisible  church 
available  to  believers  in  this  world.  It  is  evident,  from  the  New  Testament 
representations  of  the  atonement,  that  the  power  and  wisdom  of  the  Godhead 
could  not  take  efiect  on  human  nature  in  the  measure  necessary  to  salvation, 
without  assuming  a  human  organization,  as  its  conductor.  The  advantage 
which  was  gained  by  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  increases  as  his  spiritual 
body  increases  by  the  addition  of  perfected  human  nature  in  the  persons  of 
his  followers.  In  order  therefore  that  we  may  estimate  the  energy  of  salva- 
tion which  will  manifest  itself  in  this  world  when  the  visible  and  invisible 
churches  shall  be  condensed  into  one,  we  must  consider  how  many  regenera* 
ted  human  members  Christ's  body  gained  at  the  first  resurrection,  and  what 
amount  of  improvement  has  gone  forward  in  that  body  during  the  eighteen 
hundred  years  of  their  glory.  All  that  is  gained  at  the  centre,  is  gained  for 
the  whole  sphere  of  concentric  spirits.  When  the  church  of  the  first-born 
shall  become  the  inner  life  of  a  church  in  this  world,  the  visible  advancement 
of  human  nature  will  take  a  stride  of  eighteen  centuries  in  a  single  generation. 

The  physiologists  tell  us  that  the  principle  of  hereditary  transmission  is  the 
key  to  all  the  problems  of  human  degeneracy  and  human  improvement.  They 
say  that  we  of  the  present  generation  are  the  heirs  of  a  bad  organization,  and 
cannot  expect  for  ourselves  any  great  ameliorations  of  character  and  condition. 
Their  hope  is,  that  in  the  course  of  several  centuries,  by  a  wise  attention  to  the 
laws  of  propagation,  a  generation  of  men  will  be  produced  whose  organizations 
will  be  adapted  to  millennial  perfection.  These  are  doubtless  sober  deduc- 
tions from  the  facts  which  present  themselves  to  scientific  men,  and  would  be 
sound  doctrines  if  those  facts  were  all  the  premises  which  belong  to  the  case. 
But  there  is  another  and  a  mightier  power  than  that  of  natural  propagation,  ^, 
which  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  human  nature.  The  deepr  philosophy 
of  the  Bible  bids  us  look  to  regeneration  more  than  to  generation,  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  race.  The  spiritual  transmission  of  qualities  which  will 
result  from  the  condensation  of  life,  will  modify  human  character,  and  human 
organization  too,  (for  life  determines  the  character  of  its  envelope,)  more 
effectually  than  hereditary  transmission  can  do ;  and  the  process,  instead  of 
occupying  centuries,  and  depending  on  the  faithfulness  of  a  series  of  faithless 
generations,  will  advance  to  its  consummation  as  rapidly  as  men  can  be  brought    -^ 


492  CONDENSATION   OF    LIFE. 

by  the  attractions  of  the  true  gospel  to  surrender  their  spirits  to  God  and  merge 
themselves  in  the  central  sphere  of  perfected  human  life  which  already  envel- 
ops Christ.  Here  is  a  short  way  to  all  the  results  which  the  physiologists 
anticipate  from  their  chimerical  schemes  of  scientific  marriages,  and  disinter- 
ested painstaking  for  the  benefit  of  future  generations.  God  has  in  store  for 
us  the  concentrated  results,  not  only  of  what  he  accomplished  by  natural  prop- 
agation in  the  ages  before  the  advent  of  Christ,  but  of  all  that  he  has  accom- 
plished by  spiritual  propagation,  in  the  invisible  world,  since  his  kingdom  of 
righteousness  began.  Who  can  estimate  the  treasures  of  life,  love,  wisdom, 
virtue,  civilization,  refinement,  and  social  perfection,  which  have  been  accu- 
mulating for  ages  in  the  heavenly  phalanx  gathered  and  organized  by  Christ  ? 
And  who  can  conceive  of  the  glory  which  will  burst  upon  this  world  when 
those  treasures  shall  be  given  to  it — as  they  will  be,  when  the  visible  church 
shall  yield  itself  as  a  bride  to  the  invisible  ? 

We  may  consider,  further,  the  more  specific  results  of  the  condensation  of 
life.  In  perfecting  individual  character.  Christ's  prayer  that  his  followers 
might  '  all  he  made  perfect  in  one^  points  evidently  to  the  principle  which 
Paul  so  frequently  illustrated  by  reference  to  the  organization  of  the  human 
form,  viz.,  that  individuals  are  not  made  for  perfection  by  themselves,  and 
can  be  perfected  only  by  a  combination  with  each  other,  like  that  which  exists 
between  the  different  members  of  the  body.  An  eye  or  an  arm  or  a  foot  by 
itself  is  a  monstrosity.  An  entire  set  of  these  and  other  organs,  with  diverse 
characteristics  and  offices,  is  necessary  to  make  a  perfect  body.  So  men  and 
women,  in  the  isolated  state,  are  not  capable  of  perfection.  The  characters 
and  adaptations  of  individuals  are  as  diverse  as  those  of  the  members  of  the 
body.  By  nature,  one  man  is  like  the  eye,  keen  in  discernment ;  another, 
like  the  hand,  strong  in  action ;  one  is  impetuous,  another  prudent ;  one  is 
bold,  another  gentle.  The  good  elements  of  life  are  distributed  to  the  two 
sexes  in  such  a  manner  that  man  by  himself  is  deficient  in  those  beautiful 
affections  which  abound  in  woman,  and  woman  by  herself  lacks  the  strength 
of  heart  and  head  w^hich  belongs  to  man.  The  condensation  of  any  two  char- 
acters into  one,  would  improve  both  ;  and  the  more  diverse  the  two  might  be, 
the  greater  would  be  the  improvement.  A  great  part  of  the  immorality  of 
the  world  is  only  the  result  and  index  of  isolation.  Peculiarities  in  individ- 
uals, which  in  combination  with  the  counter  peculiarities  ^f  olihers  would  be 
wholesome  and  beautiful,  acting  by  themselves^-are.  odious  and  mischievous-. 
By  the  unity  of  life  to  which  Christ  calls  believers,  the  good  elements  of  an 
innumerable  multitude  of  characters  will  be  condensed  into  one,  and  the  per- 
fection of  the  compound  will  be  transfused  through  every  individual.  It  is 
easy  to  see  that  the  operation  will  develope  magnificent  treasures  of  right- 
eousness and  beauty. 

The  spiritual  atmosphere  in  which  individuals  will  grow  and  ripen,  when 
the  life  and  love  of  God  and  of  the  millions  of  ih.Q  human  race,  shall  be  con- 
centrated in  one  glowing  sphere,  will  be  as  different  from  that  of  the  present 
order  of  things  as  summer  is  from  winter,  or  as  the  years  of  Palestine  are 
from  those  of  Greenland.  '  The  desert  shall  rejoice  and  blossom  as  the  rose.* 
Education,  in  its  highest  and  most  valuable  form,  will  be  a  natural  growth. 


CONDENSATION   OF    LIFE.  493 

As  plants,  which  in  northern  regions  require  hotbeds  and  tedious  cultivation, 
under  the  sun  of  the  tropics  grow  spontaneously,  so  intellectual,  moral  and 
physical  life,  under  the  sunshine  of  divine  and  human  love,  will  spring  up 
with  a  rapidity,  and  bring  forth  fruit  in  an  abundance,  which  will  put  to 
shame  the  tillage  of  all  our  present  schools  for  mind  and  body. 

There  is  a  close  affinity,  if  not  an  identity,  between  life  and  heat,  and  be- 
tween death  and  cold.  The  same  effects  can  be  produced  upon  the  body  by 
spiritual  elements  acting  from  within,  and  by  physical  elements  acting  from 
without.  For  instance,  fear  makes  the  body  tremble,  and  the  same  effect  is 
produced  by  cold.  Physical  warmth  is  caused  by  warm  affections,  as  really 
as  it  is  by  fire  or  sunshine.  It  is  as  if  the  life  of  the  body  had  two  surfaces 
— an  inner  and  an  outer — one  of  them  exposed  to  the  impressions  of  spiritual 
elements,  and  the  other  to  those  of  physical  elements,  and  both,  when  affected, 
acting  upon  the  body  in  the  same  manner.  The  bread  of  this  world  infuses 
life  through  the  outer  surface,  and  the  bread  of  heaven  infuses  life  through 
the  inner  surface.  The  result  in  both  cases  is  satisfaction  and  strength.  One 
of  the  results  of  the  condensation  of  life  will  be,  the  bringing  of  these  princi- 
ples into  the  field  against  the  powers  of  disease  and  death.  When  life  shall 
accumulate  in  unity,  by  the  centripetal  force  of  love,  till  all  hearts  shall  radiate 
and  receive  a  perpetual  sunshine  of  joy,  it  is  not  unphilosopical  to  beUeve  that 
the  substantial  physical  results  (at  least  so  far  as  health  is  concerned)  of  an 
actual  amelioration  of  climate^  will  be  obtained.  Though  the  outer  surface 
of  life  may  be  exposed  to  the  cold  of  the  North,  yet  if  the  inner  surface  dwells 
in  the  warm  regions  of  love,  as  it  will  when  all  shall  be  one,  the  body  will  have 
many  of  the  benefits  of  a  genial  climate  ;  and  in  proportion  as  the  action  of 
the  inner  surface  prevails  over  that  of  the  outer,  health  will  become  indepen- 
dent of  the  external  elements,  and  death  at  last  will  lose  his  prey. 

We  have  before  us  a  sketch  of  the  great  miracle  of  unity  for  which 
Christ  offered  his  prayer  and  his  fife,  and  by  means  of  which  he  proposed 
and  still  proposes  to  convince  the  world  that  God  sent  him  on  his  mission  of 
love.  Who  will  not  heartily  join  in  his  prayer,  and  offer  himself  a  sacrifice 
for  its  fulfilment  ? 


§  73.    PRINCIPALITIES  AND  POWERS. 

The  governments  that  rule  over  the  world  bj  law  and  sword,  are  objects 
of  much  attention  and  interest  to  the  mass  of  mankind.  And  well  they  may 
be  :  for  they  have  a  mighty  agency  in  shaping  the  character  and  working 
out  the  destinies  of  their  subjects.  But,  after  all,  viewed  in  the  light  of 
spiritual  philosophy,  they  are  but  inferior  principalities — visible  vehicles  and 
instruments  of  the  powers  of  the  invisible  world.  Believers  in  animal  mag- 
netism may  surmise,  and  beUevers  in  the  Bible  may  be  sure,  that  there  are 
*  thrones  and  dominions'  over  us,  as  much  greater  in  dignity  than  the  dynas- 
ties of  the  external  world,  as  the  soul  is  greater  than  the  body.  '  We  wres- 
tle not  against  flesh  and  blood,  but  against  principahties,  against  powers, 
against  the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world,  against  spiritual  wickedness 
in  heavenly  places.'^*  Eph.  6:  11.  And  with  equal  truth  it  may  be  said  that 
we  wrestle  not  in  the  strength  of  flesh  and  blood,  but  ot  principalities,  of 
powers,  of  the  rulers  of  the  light  of  the  eternal  world,  of  spiritual  righteous- 
ness  in  heavenly  places. 

Ascending,  with  the  Bible  for  our  guide,  from  the  visible  to  the  invisible 
sphere,  we  find  ttvo  great  spiritual  empires,  distinct  and  antagonistic,  yet 
ruling  together,  one  above  the  other,  over  the  kingdoms  of  this  world. 

Previous  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  Satan  was  the  '  prince  of  this  world,' 
and  could  boast  that  all  power  on  earth  was  delivered  to  him.  Luke  4:  6. 
He  was  the  strong  man  armed  who  kept  the  palace  of  the  world,  and  his 
goods  were  in  peace.  Luke  11:  14.  But  a  stronger  than  he  came  upon  him 
and  bound  him.  When  Christ  triumphed  over  death  and  ascended  up  on 
high,  he  became  the  head  of  all  principality  and  power.  Col.  2:  10.  To  him 
was  given  the  dominion  which  the  devil  had  before  claimed  and  exercised — ■ 
he  became  '  Prince  of  the  kings  of  the  earth.'  Nevertheless  the  ncAV  sove- 
reign did  not  immediately  abolish  the  principalities  which  Satan  had  estab- 
lished, and  banish  his  subject-spirits  from  the  world.  He  only  commenced 
that  administration  which  is  to  terminate  in  '  putting  down  all  rule  and  all 
authority  and  power.'  1  Cor.  15:  24.  He  proved  his  actual  sovereignty, 
first,  at  his  second  coming,  by  annihilating  the  Jewish  hierarchy,  which  had 
been  the  ascendant  spiritual  djniasty ;  and  afterwards,  by  establishing  the 
religion  which  bore  his  name  and  kept  his  records,  on  the  ruins  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  which  had  been  the  head  of  the  political  and  heathen  world.  But 
Satan  was  not  immediately  sent  to  his  final  doom — the  lake  of  fire.  .  Though 
he  was  dethroned  and  driven  into  the  '  abyss'  to  remain  a  thousand  years, 
yet  he  found  means  to  install  '  the  beast'  as  his  successor  and  vicegerent ; 
(Rev.  13:  2  ;)  and  to  this  day, — though  Christ,  with  the  army  of  the  prim- 
itive saints  and  the  loyal  angels,  reigns  over  all  nations  with  a  rod  of  iron, 
dashing  them  in  pieces  at  his  pleasure,  and  guiding  all  the  elements  of  the 
world  to  the  issue  of  the  final  judgment, — yet  at  the  same  time,  below  him, 

*  Tlie  word  here  rendered  in  our  common  version  'high  places,'  is  the  same  as  that 
translated  'heavenly  places,'  in  Eph.  1;  3,  and  2:  6. 


PRINCIPALITIES   AND    POWERS.  495 

and  in  more  immediate  contact  with  mankind,  an  invisible  kingdom  of  evil 
demons,  with  Satan  (now  loosed  again)  at  its  head,  covers  and  darkens  the 
face  of  the  whole  earth. 

To  illustrate  the  relative  position  of  these  two  kingdoms — the  good  and  the 
evil, — we  may  compare  the  world  to  a  city  surrounded  by  two  concentric 
armies,  the  inner  army  besieging  the  city,  and  the  outer  army  besieging  the 
inner.  The  city  is  rightfully  in  friendship  with  the  outer  army,  and  occasion- 
ally communication  is  established  between  them.  But  while  the  siege  lasts, 
the  inner  army  has  the  advantage  over  the  city.  Or,  since  the  force  by 
which  the  invisible  kingdoms  rule,  is  spiritual,  we  may  take  an  illustration 
from  Mesmerism.  Suppose  that  one  man  magnetizes  another  till  spiritual 
identity  is  established  between  them,  and  then  a  stronger  magnetizer  com- 
mences operations  upon  both.  In  this  case  the  first  subject  would  receive 
the  fluid  from  both  magnetizers,  and  would  be  affected  by  the  will  and 
thoughts  of  each  by  turns,  till  the  strongest  should  entirely  prevail.  So  Satan, 
having  first  magnetized  the  whole  w^orld,  was  overcome  in  the  spiritual  conflict 
of  the  cross,  and  for  eighteen  hundred  years  has  been  subject,  in  conjunction 
with  the  world,  to  the  superior  magnetism  of  Christ.  The  operation  will  end 
in  the  separation  of  Satan  from  the  world,  his  destruction,  and  the  spiritual 
unity  of  God  and  man.  But  for  the  present,  the  magnetism  of  both  Christ 
and  Satan  are  at  work  upon  the  w^orld,  producing  a  medley  of  incoherent  and 
conflicting  results. 

This  view  of  the  position  and  influence  of  the  invisible  powers,  will  help 
spiritual  persons  to  understand  many  mysterious  phenomena  in  the  move- 
ments around  them  and  in  their  own  experience. 

The  manifestations  of  supernatural  power  and  wisdom  which  are  found  in 
connection  with  false  and  wicked  systems  of  religion,  and  among  the  creden- 
tials of  deceivers  and  hypocrites,  will  not  be  wondered  at  or  feared  by  those 
who  know  that  the  hosts  of  evil  as  well  as  of  good  still  occupy  regions,  which, 
with  reference  to  our  position,  are  properly  called  '  heavenly  places  ;'  and 
thus  are  able  to  pour  forth  transcendental  influences  on  those  who  are  in  af- 
finity with  them,  in  this  world.  The  pretences  of  false  spiritualists  to  miracles 
and  inspirations,  need  not  be  denied  and  derided.  Admitting  the  reality  of 
such  manifestations,  the  believer  who  has  learned  that  his  warfare  is  '  not 
with  flesh  and  blood,'  may  boldly  resist  them,  as  emanations,  not  from  the 
upper  sanctuary,  but  from  the  spiritual  wickedness  of  the  lower  heavens. 

Again,  when  the  believer  first  opens  his  heart  to  the  spiritual  world,  and  is 
conscious  of  the  blessed  influences  of  the  spirit  of  heaven,  he  is  apt  to  imagine 
that  he  is  out  of  the  reach  of  all  evil  spirits,  and  that  the  day  of  glory  which 
has  dawned  upon  him  will  never  be  sullied  by  a  cloud.  Whereas  the  truth 
is,  by  emerging  from  the  visible  to  the  invisible  world,  he  is  placed  in  more 
immediate  contact  with  the  powers  of  darkness  than  he  was  before.  He  has 
entered  into  private  communication  with  the  outer  army,  and  according  to 
the  instructions  given  him,  he  has  passed  out  of  the  city  and  is  on  his  way  to 
his  friends.  He  may  rejoice  that  he  is  called  to  the  escape,  but  he  will  find 
ere  long  that  the  whole  breadth  of  the  enemies'  camp  hes  between  him  and 
the  end  of  liis  journey.     The  same  spiritual  change  which  has  made  him 


49G  PRINCIPALITIES   AND  POWERS. 

sensitive  to  the  magnetism  of  Christ,  has  also  bared  the  fibres  of  his  soul  to 
the  magnetism  of  Satan.  All  our  experience  and  observation  bids  us  warn 
those  who  are  entering  upon  a  spiritual  life,  to  expect  suffering  as  well  as 

But  there  is  abundant  encouragement,  as  well  as  warning,  in  the  views 
w^e  have  presented.  When  spiritual  suffering  comes,  inexperienced  believers 
are  prone  to  suspect  themselves  of  sin,  and  to  admit  a  spirit  of  self-accusation. 
But  let  them  learn  that  by  the  very  nature  of  their  condition  they  are  ex- 
posed to  malignant,  as  well  as  benign  influences,  and  they  will  impute  the 
darkening  of  their  spirits  not  to  the  displeasure  of  God  or  to  their  sins,  but 
to  the  magnetism  of  that  evil  one  who  poured  an  agony  on  the  pure  soul  of 
Christ.  Much  of  the  spiritual  tribulation  for  which  conscientious  persons 
are  ever  ready  to  blame  themselves,  is  unquestionably  the  effect  of  causes 
as  far  above  their  control,  as  the  clouds  which  darken  a  summer's  day. — 
A  child  may  cry  when  the  heavens  are  overcast,  and  the  chill  of  the  coming 
storm  is  felt ;  but  a  wise  man  will  button  his  coat  and  wait  patiently  till  the 
cloud  is  past,  not  blaming  himself,  nor  doubting  that  the  blue  heavens  are 
still  above  him,  and  that  fair  weather  will  come  again. 

Spiritual  believers  are  often  conscious  of  astonishing  changes  of  feeling,  for 
which  they  can  assign  no  cause.  To-day  every  thing  seems  green  and  hope- 
ful ;  the  universe  smiles  upon  them,  and  they  sit  with  Christ  in  heavenly  plar 
ces.'  To-morrow  they  are  cast  down,  and  see  nothing  but  evil  within  and 
without.  They  have  not  varied  their  course  of  life  at  all,  and  the  change 
seems  unaccountable.  But  let  them  consider  their  relations  to  the  good  and 
evil  kingdoms  which  are  in  conflict  over  them,  and  the  mystery  will  vanish. 
To-day  the  upper  magnetism  prevails,  and  they  rejoice  :  to-morrow  the  lower 
magnetism  prevails,  and  they  are  sad.  The  change  is  not  in  them,  but  in  the 
spiritual  atmosphere  which  is  upon  them.  Let  them  learn  to  hold  on  their 
way  through  such  changes,  with  unwavering  faith  and  patience,  and  without 
wondering. 

It  is  the  business  of  the  believer's  life  to  break  through  and  overcome  the 
principalities  of  the  lower  kingdom,  and  effect  a  permanent  and  perfect 
junction  with  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  This  is  the  '  good  fight' — the  ^  fight 
of  faith.'  The  conditions  of  it  should  be  w^ell  understood  ;  and,  first  of  all, 
that  condition  which  most  directly  results  from  the  facts  which  we  have  sta- 
ted, viz.,  that  the  issues  of  the  good  fight  are  not  dependent  on  human 
strength  and  skill.  Individual  conflicts  are  parts  of  the  one  great  battle  be- 
tween the  powers  of  heaven  and  hell.  Every  believer,  however  he  may  iso- 
late himself  in  his  own  imagination,  and  set  up  his  own  wisdom  and  will  as  his 
bulwarks  against  evil,  is,  after  all,  little  more  than  a  passive  battle-field,  on 
which  the  invisible  hosts  contend.  As  the  combat  thickens,  he  may  expect 
to  find  himself,  like  a  disputed  point  on  a  field .  swept  by  charging  battalions, 
taken  and  retaken  many  times  over  by  opposing  forces.  But  God  will  tri- 
umph— good  will  finally  hold  possession  of  the  field.  This  is  the  believer's 
hope.  His  interest  in  the  conflict  is  not  a  matter  of  mere  individual  concern, 
but  a  public  interest.  God  and  the  armies  of  heaven  have  their  eye  on  him, 
and  will  take  care  that  their  cause— the  cause  of  universal  good — shall  not 


OUR  RELATIONS  TO  THE  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH.  497 

be  defeated  in  him.     All  the  strength  of  the  Godhead  and  its  legions  shall 
be  concentrated  on  him,  if  necessary  to  his  security  and  triumph. 

Separated  as  we  are  from  the  upper  church,  by  interposing  hosts  of  evil, 
we  must  nevertheless  conceive  of  ourselves  as  effectually  identified  with  that 
church.  There  is  no  truth,  and  no  comfort,  in  the  notion  that  one  division 
of  the  church  of  Christ  is  exclusively  '  triumphant,'  and  the  other  merely 
*  militant.'  The  whole  army  of  believers,  whether  in  heaven  or  on  earth,  is 
yet  '  militant,'  and  will  not  cease  to  be  till  every  part  of  it  is  '  triumphant.' 
The  two  divisions  in  which  it  exists  for  the  present,  are  alike  interested  and 
active  in  the  war  with  evil,  and  operate  in  concert  against  the  forces  betvv'een 
them.  And  their  separation  enables  them  to  attack  at  once  the  front  and 
rear  of  the  enemy's  position.  They  are  externally  divided,  that  the  enemy 
may  place  himself  between  them.  But  they  are  riveted  together  at  the  cen- 
tre, and  will  at  last  come  together  like  shear-blades,  and  cut  the  spirit  of  evil 
asunder. 


§  74.    OUR  RELATIONS  TO  THE  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH. 

Protestants,  in  the  excess  of  their  aversion  to  the  superstitious  and  idol- 
atrous practices  of  the  Romish  church,  have  certainly  abandoned  some  im- 
portant truths  which  that  church  really  derived  from  apostolic  tradition, 
though  it  has  perverted  and  disguised  them  till  they  seem  abominable  false- 
hoods. Among  the  truths  that  have  been  thus  abandoned,  we  reckon  the 
doctrine  of  the  spiritual  presence  and  mediation  of  the  invisible  church,  on 
which  the  popish  practices  of  the  invocation  of  the  saints,  the  w^orship  of 
the  virgin  Mary,  &c.,  are  founded.  While  the  papist's  view  of  the  spiritual 
world  is  so  darkened  with  clouds  of  saints  that  he  sees  but  dimly  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  the  protestant's  view,  on  the  other  hand,  is  so  narrowed 
by  his  jealousy  of  saint-worship,  that  he  sees  nothing  hut  the  Father  and  the 
Son  ;  and  '  the  church  of  the  first-born'  is  to  him  as  a  nonentity.  The  true 
view  avoids  both  of  these  extremes. 

The  apostles,  prophets,  and  believers,  who  w^ere  gathered  into  Christ  during 
the  period  preceding  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  are  certainly  still  in  exis- 
tence. This  no  one  doubts.  They  are  risen  from  the  dead,  and  glorified 
with  Christ.  This  no  one  will  deny,  who  believes  that  Christ  came  the 
second  time  according  to  his  promise.  But  have  they  any  concern  with  this 
world  ?  Are  they  not  laid  away  in  some  secret  mansion  of  the  universe,  so 
distant  that  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  us  or  we  with  them  ?  These  are 
questions  to  which  conscience  as  well  as  curiosity  demands  an  answer. 

The  fact  that  the  primitive  church  has  passed  through  death  into  the  invis- 
ible state,  does  not  prove  that  it  has  no  concern  with  this  world.     Christ  died, 
and  the  world  saw  him  no  more.     He  rose  from  the  dead,  ascended  up  on 
high  and  took  his  seat  in  an  invisible  mansion.    Was  this  the  end  of  Lis  opera- 
62 


498  OUR  RELATIONS   TO   THE   PRIMITIVB  dHtRCIT. 

tions  in  this  world  ?  No  ;  we  might  rather  say  it  was  only  the  beginning. 
But  the  primitive  saints  followed  him  in  his  resurrection  and  ascension,  and  have 
since  been  with  him  in  the  world  of  spirits.  Why  then  should  they  not  share 
in  his  continued  operations  on  this  world  ?  and  why  should  not  their  transi* 
tion  from  the  visible  to  the  invisible  state  be  like  his,  the  beginning  instead  of 
the  end  of  their  highest  ministry  to  mankind  ?  Their  union  with  him  in  spirit 
is  certainly  not  less  intimate  since  their  departure,  than  it  was  while  they  were 
in  the  flesh.  Can  we  suppose  that  they  are  not  still  as  much  united  with  him 
in  ageiicy  as  they  were  in  the  apostolic  age  ?  They  were  then  called  '  his 
hody^  members  of  Ms  flesh  and  of  his  hones.''  They  are  still  his  body — still 
identified  with  him  as  the  members  are  with  the  head.  Is  it  conceivable  that 
the  head  should  be  engaged  with  the  aifairs  of  this  world,  while  the  body  and 
members  have  nothing  to  do  with  it  ?  They  who  speak  of  Christ  as  '  the  great 
Head  of  the  church,'  ought  to  remember  that  he  is  the  head,  first  of  all,  of  the 
primitive  church,  and  that  the  apostles,  prophets,  and  believers  in  whom  he 
was  first  revealed,  are  still  his  members,  and  still  to  be  recognized  and  hon- 
ored with  him  as  his  agents  of  salvation,  certainly  not  less  efiicient  and  glorious 
now  than  they  were  eighteen  hundred  years  ago. 

"We  have  very  clear  and  direct  testimony  in  scripture  to  the  fact  that  the 
primitive  saints,  at  their  transition  from  the  visible  to  the  invisible  world,  en- 
tered into  an  enlarged  sphere  of  co-agency  with  Christ.  In  the  parable  of 
the  talents,  (which  relates  directly  to  the  judgment  of  the  second  coming, 
see  Matt.  25:  14,)  the  good  servants  who  had  been  faithful  over  a  few  things 
were  made  '  rulers  over  many  things,'  and  so  entered  into  the  joy  of  their 
Lord.  He  that  had  gained  ten  pounds  was  made  ruler  over  ten  cities  in  the 
kingdom  of  his  master.  See  Luke  19:  17.  Now  the  kingdom  which  was 
given  to  Christ  at  his  resurrection,  and  which  he  began  to  administer  at  his 
second  coming,  embraced  '  all  power  in  heaven  and  on  earth.'  See  Matt.  28: 
18.  The  stations  which,  according  to  the  parable,  he  was  to  assign  to  to  his 
faithful  servants,  as  their  rewards  at  his  coming,  were  of  course  offices  in  that 
kingdom — i.  e.  offices  of  power  on  earth  as  well  as  in  heaven.  The  partici- 
pation of  the  primitive  saints  in  the  administration  of  Christ's  kingdom  after 
the  second  advent,  is  clearly  predicted  and  promised  in  the  following  passages: 
'Jesus  said  unto  them.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  ye  which  have  followed  me 
in  the  regeneration,  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory, 
ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.' 
Matt.  19:  28.  *  I  appoint  unto  you  a  Kingdom,  as  my  Father  hath  appoint- 
ed unto  me  :  that  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my  kingdom,  and  sit 
on  thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.'  Luke  22:  29,  30.  'He 
that  overcometh,  and  keepeth  my  works  unto  the  end,  to  him  will  I  give  pow- 
er over  the  nations :  and  he  shall  rule  them  with  a  rod  of  iron  ;  as  the  vessels 
of  a  potter  shall  they  be  broken  to  shivers  :  even  as  I  received  of  my  Father.' 
Rev.  2:  26,  27.  'To  him  that  overcometh  will  I  grant  to  sit  with  me  in  my 
throne,  even  as  I  also  overcame,  and  am  set  down  with  my  Father  in  his 
throne.'  Rev.  8:  21.  The  fulfilment  of  these  promises  is  recorded  in  the 
song  of  the  four  and  twenty  elders: — '  Thou  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy 
blood,  .  .  *  and  hast  made  us  unto  our  God,  kings  and  priests  ;  and  we  shall 


OUR  RELATIONS  TO   THE   PRIMITIVE   CHURCH.  499 

reign  on  the  earth.'  Rsv.  5:  10.  And  it  is  declared  in  a  subsequent  vis- 
ion that  these  kings  and  priests  '  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand 
years.'    Rev.  20:  4—6. 

It  is  evident  then  that  the  primitive  saints  have  something  to  do  with  us, 
since  thej  are  kings  and  priests  unto  God  over  the  earth.  But  have  we  any 
thing  to  do  with  them  'i  Can  we  in  any  way  practically  recognize  them  as 
our  kings  and  priests,  or  must  we  put  them  out  of  view,  and  so  merge  them 
in  Christ  as  to  account  them  nonentities  in  his  kingdom.  We  ought  to  pon- 
der this  question  without  any  of  the  prejudices  which  the  idolatries  of  popery 
have  engendered  among  protestants.  It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  Christ 
will  not  be  as  much  displeased  with  those  who  altogether  neglect  to  recognize 
his  officers,  as  with  those  who  worship  them. 

But  are  they  in  any  way  accessible  to  us  ?  Certainly  they  are,  if  Chrisfc 
is  accessible  ;  for  they  are  with  him — '  members  of  bis  flesh  and  of  his  bones.' 
If  we  can  have  intercourse  with  the  head,  why  not  with  the  body  ?  Precisely 
the  same  kind  of  unbelief  prevents  free  access  to  them  as  that  which  shuts 
Christ  out  of  the  world,  and  puts  God  far  away  into  the  heavens.  And  pre- 
cisely the  same  kind  of  faith  as  that  which  opens  free  communication  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  will  also  give  access  to  the  apostles,  prophets,  and  gen- 
eral assembly  of  the  primitive  church.  Like  Christ  they  are  spiritual  beings; 
like  him  they  are  reigning  on  the  earth  by  spiritual  influences  ;  and  like  him 
they  may  be  seen,  received,  and  fellowshiped  by  spiritual  faith.  We  can  have 
nothing  to  do  with  Christ  or  any  part  of  his  kingdom,  otherwise  than  by  that 
faith  which  is  the  '  evidence  of  things  not  seen ;'  and  by  the  same  faith  we 
can  open  communication  with  the  kings  and  priests  whom  he  has  set  over  us. 

The  first  thing  to  be  done,  in  order  that  we  may  have  access  to  God,  is,  to 
believe  that  '  he  is,  and  is  a  reivarder  of  them  that  dilige7itly  seek  him.'' 
Then  we  '  feel  after  him'  with  our  hearts,  and  converse  with  him  through  his 
word.  So  the  first  thing  to  be  done  in  order  that  we  may  have  fellowship 
with  the  primitive  church,  is  to  believe  that  it  is  a  real,  living  churchy  and  is 
at  work  over  us  and  around  us.  Then  our  hearts  will  go  forth  to  it,- — we 
shall  acquaint  ourselves  with  its  spiritual  history  and  position,  and  so  shall 
become  conscious  members  of  it  and  partakers  of  its  blessings.  If  there  is  a 
way  for  us  to  be  joined  to  the  Lord  in  a  sense  that  is  valuable  and  substantial, 
then  there  is  a  way  for  us  to  join  the  primitive  church  in  a  sense  that  is 
equally  valuable  and  substantial. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  we  should  luorship  the  invisible  saints,  in  order 
that  we  may  enter  into  their  fellowship.  They  have  no  disposition  to  inter- 
cept any  portion  of  the  adoration  which  is  due  to  the  Most  High,  as  we  are 
assured  by  such  facts  as  that  recorded  in  Rev.  22:  8,  9.  But  there  is  cer- 
tainly no  more  impropriety  in  our  soliciting  their  intercessions,  than  there  is 
in  our  asking  a  visible  friend  to  intercede  for  us.  If  a  man  may  call  for  the 
elders  of  the  church  on  earth  to  pray  for  him,  there  is  certainly  nothing  to 
forbid  his  calling  for  the  elders  of  the  church  in  heaven  to  do  the  same.  The 
Rom  m  Catholics  might  well  maintain  their  ground  against  the  protestants, 
if  they  went  no  further  than  tliis.  As  members  of  Christ,  the  primitive 
church  are  in  some  sense  '  priests,'  and  unquestionably  take  part  in  his  medi-. 
atorial  office  between  God  and  the  world. 


600  OUR  RELATIONS   TO   THE  PRIMITIVE   CHURCH, 

The  relation  which  ought  to  be  established  between  the  believer  on  earth 
and  the  invisible  church,  is  simply  that  which  he  might  properly  enter  into 
with  a  visible  Christian  church.  Suppose  the  apostolic  church  were  now  on 
earth.  A  man  might  certainly  join  it  without  worshiping  its  saints.  He 
might  commune  with  them,  and  join  their  worship  of  the  Father.  He  might 
receive  their  instructions,  so  far  as  they  were  wiser  than  he.  He  might  sub- 
mit himself  to  their  pastorship,  so  far  as  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  his 
overseers.  All  this  would  be  perfectly  consistent  with  his  allegiance  to  God, 
and  in  fact  favorable  and  necessary  to  its  fruitfulness.  So  our  spirits  may 
join  the  church  of  the  first-born,  we  may  commune  and  worship  with  them, 
we  may  learn  from  them  and  submit  to  them,  without  turning  away  from 
God. 

The  invisible  primitive  church  is,  in  reality,  what  the  Roman  church  false- 
ly pretends  to  be, — the  holy,  apostolic,  catholic,  mother-church.  The  true 
church  of  God  in  the  Christian  dispensation  is  not,  like  the  old  Jewish  church, 
changeable  and  transmissive.  The  priests  under  the  law  were  many,  '  because 
they  were  not  suffered  to  continue  by  reason  of  death.'  But  Christ  has 
bridged  over  the  chasm  which  death  makes  between  this  world  and  heaven. 
'  This  man,  because  he  continiieth  ever,  hath  an  unchangeable  priesthood.' 
Jleb.  7:  23,  24.  But  he  does  not  continue  ever  in  this  tvorld.  He  died 
and  passed  into  the  invisible  world.  Why  did  he  not  give  his  place  and  au- 
thority to  a  successor,  if  the  Jewish  and  popish  principle  of  a  transmissive 
priesthood  was  to  have  place  in  the  Christian  dispensation  ?  His  priesthood 
is  unchangeable,  because,  though  he  died,  he  is  risen  from  the  dead,  and  still 
lives  with  entire  abihty  to  wield  all  power  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  For  the 
very  same  reason  the  priesthood  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  is  unchangeable. 
They  are  risen  with  him,  and  still  live,  fully  competent  to  share  in  the  admin- 
istration of  his  kingdom.  The  pope  says  he  is  the  successor  of  St.  Peter. 
"Why  does  he  not  go  for  the  whole,  and  say  that  he  is  the  successor  of  Christ  ? 
He  might  just  as  well  claim  Christ's  throne,  as  Peter's  bishopric.  As  cer- 
tainly as  Christ  is  still  the  chief  corner  stone  of  the  church,  so  certainly  Pe- 
ter is  still  its  '  rock,'  and  the  apostles  and  prophets  are  its  foundations.  The 
Ghristian  church  is  a  unit,  that  has  never  changed  (except  as  it  has  been 
enlarged  by  accretion)  since  Christ  gathered  it  and  appointed  its  officers 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago.  It  has  not  left  its  place  to  a  successor,  because, 
like  its  Head,  it  'continueth  ever.'  Any  gathering  of  religionists,  other  than 
Christ,  the  apostles,  prophets  and  primitive  believers,  that  calls  itself  the 
holy,  catholic,  apostolic,  mother-church,  and  claims  honor  and  authority  cor- 
responding to  its  title,  is  an  impostor  as  vile  as  one  who  should  forge  a  will, 
affix  to  it  his  father's  signature,  put  it  in  probate,  and  claim  possession  of  his 
patrimony  before  his  father's  death. 

Papists  tell  us  that  there  is  no  salvation,  or  at  most,  nothing  but  the  'uncov- 
enanted  mercies  of  God,'  out  of  the  pale  of  the  holy  CathoHc  church.  This, 
though  it  is  false  as  applied  to  the  papal  hierarchy,  is  in  an  important  sense 
true  as  applied  to  '  the  church  of  the  first-born.'  Christ  gave  the  '  power  of 
the  keys'  to  his  apostles  and  the  church  first  gathered.  John  20:  23,  Matt. 
18:  18.     But  they  never  gave  them  to  any  successors.     They  have  them 


OUR  RELATIONS   TO   THE   PRIMITIVE   CHURCH.  601 

still.  The  promise  which  was  given  them  that  they  should  remit  and  retain 
sins,  and  bind  and  loose  for  heaven,  is  to  be  referred  to  their  '  unchangeable 
priesthood,'  and  not  merely  to  their  visible  ministry.  They  have  been  far 
better  qualified  for  the  tremendous  function  of  deciding  the  destinies  of  men, 
since  they  ascended  their  thrones  in  the  everlasting  kingdom,  than  they  were 
in  the  days  of  their  flesh.  After  eighteen  hundred  years  of  sinless  experi- 
ence, they  are  certainly  far  safer  depositaries  of  the  keys  of  heaven  than  the 
transient  priests  of  popery.  In  their  invisible  ministry  they  are  commissioned 
to  judge  men,  and  even  angels.  1  Cor.  6:  2,  3.  They  are  our  judges  ;  and 
we  shall  all  find  at  last  that  there  is  no  entrance  into  the  holy  city  but  through 
the  twelve  apostolic  gates — that  what  popery  falsely  claims,  the  primitive 
church  actually  possesses,  viz.  the  power  of  salvation  and  damnation. 

These  are  the  views  which  are  destined  in  due  time  to  settle  the  world-wide 
controversies  about  •  apostolic  succession.'  The  grand  question,  on  which  all 
Christendom  is  disputing — viz.,  Which  is  the  ti^ue  chiirchf — will  at  last  be  an- 
swered to  the  consciences  of  all  honest  believers,  without  their  being  required 
to  grope  under  ground  all  the  way  back  to  the  apostolic  age  after  the  creden- 
tials of  Christ's  ministers.  Instead  of  seeking  connection  with  the  primitive 
church  by  the  subterranean  process,  we  shall  find  that  church,  after  its  invis- 
ible flight  of  eighteen  hundred  years,  soaring  over  us  and  descending  upon  us, 
living,  organized,  and  accessible.  Popery  will  have  for  its  competitor  none 
of  the  ^potsherds  of  the  earth'  with  which  it  has  heretofore  striven,  but,  that 
very  church  from  which  it  pretends  to  derive  its  authority — the  body-guard 
of  Him  who  sitteth  upon  the  throne. 

It  is  the  policy  of  the  Christian  dispensation  to  turn  the  hearts  of  believers 
from  the  visible  to  the  spiritual  world.  Christ  left  his  disciples  and  estab- 
lished his  head-quarters  in  heaven,  that  he  might  give  an  upward,  instead  of 
a  horizontal,  direction  to  their  spiritual  affections.  In  like  manner  he  has  pro- 
vided for  Christendom  a  church  high  above  the  level  on  which  all  the  visible 
sects  stand,  the  attraction  of  which  will  draw  faith  upward  toward  the  unseen 
world,  and  toward  God.  The  best  cravings  of  all  true  hearts  for  church-fellow- 
ship, and  church-privileges,  will  ultimately  be  turned  toward  the  invisible 
centre  of  Christianity,  where  Christ  himself  and  his  glorious  kings  and  priests 
occupy  the  stations  which  popes  and  cardinals  and  bishops  and  doctors  of 
divinity,  arrogate  to  themselves  in  the  counterfeit  hierarchies  of  this  world. 
Those  cravings  will  then  be  satisfied,  and  never  till  then. 

As  the  invisible  church  extends  itself  into  this  world  by  attaching  to  itself 
individual  believers,  subordinate  visible  churches  may  be  formed.  But  they  will 
not  be  representative,  '  vicegerent'  churches.  They  will  not  claim  possession 
of  the  world  by  virtue  of  a  traditionary  will,  and  under  the  pretence  that  the 
primitive  church  is  dead.  They  will  be  branches,  not  whole  trees  by  them- 
selves ;  and  as  fast  as  their  affiliation  to  the  parent  stock  proceeds,  the  par- 
tition between  heaven  and  earth  Avill  be  broken  down — the  distinction  between 
the  '  church  militant'  and  the  '  church  triumphant'  will  be  repudiated.  But 
whether  these  visible  branches  exist  or  not,  whoever  wishes  to  join  the  true 
church,  must  first  of  all  seek  fellowship  with  the  central  organization  ;  and  he 
need  not  regard  his  fellowship  with  any  visible  organization  as  a  matter  of  life 


i 


502  OUR  RELATIONS   TO   THE  PRIMITIVE   CHURCH. 

and  death.  When  the  idea  that  the  original  apostolic  church  is  yet  alive, 
and  present  to  the  world,  overshadowing  all  things,  and  vested  with  supreme 
judicial  authority,  shall  swell  to  its  proper  dimensions  in  the  minds  of  believers, 
(as  it  will,  when  they  become  truly  spiritual,)  the  pretensions  of  all  visible 
sects  that  claim  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  virtue  of  '  apostolical 
succession,'  or  in  any  other  way,  will  sink  into  insignificance.  Every  eye 
will  turn  from  the  body  to  the  soul  of  Christianity. 

Papists  and  others  insist  that  an  outward,  visible  church-organization  is  a 
necessary  part  of  the  apparatus  of  salvation,  for  the  same  reason  as  that  which 
made  the  incarnation  of  Christ  necessary,  i.  e.,  because  men  must  be  drawn 
to  God  through  human  sympathies  ;  and  for  that  purpose  the  divine  nature, 
at  the  point  of  contact  with  the  world,  must  be  clothed  in  human  nature. 
This  is  the  strong  point  of  Brownson's  argument  for  the  Catholic  church. 
He  maintains  that  if  there  is  no  true  church  on  earth,  then  the  line  of  com- 
munication with  the  Godhead  is  broken,  and  we  must  wait  for  a  new  recon- 
ciliation. To  this  we  reply,  there  is  a  spiritual  as  well  as  a  visible  element 
in  human  nature,  and  communication  with  the  Godhead  is  opened  through 
spiritual  sympathies,  rather  than  through  visible  acts  and  organizations.  But 
so  far  as  spiritual  sympathies  are  concerned,  we  are  in  as  good  position  for 
entering  into  fellowship  with  the  invisible  primitive  church,  as  we  are  for 
entering  into  fellowship  with  the  pope  and  his  cardinals.  The  latter,  as  well 
as  the  former,  are  invisible  to  all  except  the  few  who  can  travel  to  Rome  ;  and 
the  former  certainly  have  more  spiritual  power,  and  extension  of  spiritual 
presence  than  the  latter.  The  union  of  God  with  human  nature  is  not  proved 
to  be  broken  by  the  fact  that  no  visible  conductor  exists.  What  visible  con- 
ductor was  concerned  in  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  ? 
Christ  was  in  the  heavens,  and  the  disciples,  before  that  event,  had  not  re- 
ceived the  power  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  The  divine  nature  descended 
upon  them,  not  through  the  bodily  presence  of  Christ,  but  through  his  invisible 
human  nature.  So  all  the  riches  of  the  Godhead  may  come  to  us  through 
the  human  nature  of  the  first-born  church,  though  it  is  Avith  Christ  in  the 
heavens.  The  disciples  had  received  the  external  word  of  Christ  before  their 
baptism,  and  thereby  were  in  initial  communication  with  him.  So  wo  have 
received  the  external  word  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  through  the  Bible,  and 
thereby  are  in  initial  communication  with  them.  Not  a  link  of  the  original 
chain  is  wanting.  By  the  very  nature  of  things,  if  man  is  to  be  drawn  into 
unity  with  God,  the  first  step  of  the  process  must  be  to  turn  his  face  from  the 
visible  to  the  spiritual  world — to  give  his  faith  an  ascending  direction.  By 
the  horizontal  faith  which  a  visible  church  evokes,  he  can  make  no  approach 
to  God. 

Far  be  it  from  us  to  undervalue  the  agency  of  human  sympathies  in  the 
machinery  of  salvation.     But  we  cannot  admit  that  the  humanity  of  Jesus 

'  Christ  is  destroyed,  or  its  efficiency  as  a  conductor  of  the  divine  nature  frus- 
trated, because  he  has  passed  into  the  heavens.  And  no  more  can  we  admit 
that  the  apostolic  church  is  incompetent  to  fulfil  the  functions  of  a  spiritual 

V     mother,  because  it  is  invisible.     We  discern  in  that  church,  unseen  as  it  is, 
J   a  vast  accumulation  o^ perfected  human  sympathies,  which,  when  faith  shall 

r    admit  them  to  action  in  this  world,  will  produce  efiocts  which  will  amaze  the 


-OUR  RELATIONS  TO   THE  PRIMITIVE   CHURCH.  503 

most  hopeful  expectants  of  the  day  of  redemption.  God  is  manifest  in  the 
flesh  at  the  present  time,  on  a  scale  of  which  few  have  any  conception.  Most 
persons  are  gazing  into  the  heavens  through  a  very  narrow  tube.  They  see 
but  one  '  bright  particular  star,'  while  the  whole  firmament  is  studded  with 
constellations.  Jesus  Christ  in  his  own  person  is  regarded  as  the  only  incar- 
nation of  God  ;  whereas  he  is  but  the  head  of  a  great  spiritual  body  which 
includes  the  persons  of  all  the  primitive  believers  ;  and  in  that  whole  body 
dwells  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead.  In  an  important  sense  it  may  be  said 
that  instead  of  one  Christ,  we  have  above  us  at  least  a  hundred  and  forty- 
four  thousand  Christs  !  So  far  as  human  sympathies  are  concerned,  the  pow- 
er of  salvation  which  God  gained  by  the  incarnation  of  his  Son,  has  since  been 
multiplied  by  the  number  of  all  the  perfected  members  of  his  body. 

We  apprehend  that  it  is  the  recognition  of  this  glorious  truth  throughout 
Christendom,  that  is  wanted  more  than  any  thing  else,  to  re-open  the  primi- 
tive free  communication  between  heaven  and  earth.  Men  are  looking  on  the 
one  hand  to  their  visible  churches,  and  on  the  other  to  Jesus  Christ  in  his  in- 
dividual person — while  they  know  not  the  glory,  and  hardly  the  existence  of 
the  great  thousand-fold  conductor  of  heavenly  power  which  God  has  prepared 
in  the  church  which  surrounds  his  Son.  God  will  pour  himself  out  upon  the 
world  only  through  his  appointed  channels.  His  saints,  as  well  as  their  King, 
are  to  come  and  be  'admired'  in  the  day  of  his  power.  2Thess.  1:  10. 
The  faith  of  Christendom  must  be  enlarged,  to  behold  in  the  clouds  of  heaven 
not  only  the  Father  and  the  Son,  but  the  '  sacramental  host'  of  apostles, 
prophets  and  primitive  believers,  before  the  second  Pentecost  will  come.  The 
alienation  of  Christendom,  not  from  popery,  but  from  the  invisible  mother- 
church,  is  the  great  breach  to  be  repaired,  in  order  that  the  divine  and  hu- 
man natures  may  flow  together,  and  '  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  cover  the 
earth  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea.' 

The  primitive  church  is  a  political  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  organization/^ 
Christ  and  his  officers  are  kings,  as  well  as  priests.  In  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  the  church  is  the  state,  and  the  state  is  the  church.  One  cabinet 
administers  both  religious  and  political  affairs.  As  we  have  urged  all  who 
are  seeking  the  true  church  to  set  their  faces  toward  the  spiritual  centre,  sa 
we  might  by  the  same  considerations  urge  all  who  are  seeking  the  true  form 
of  government,  the  national  organization  commissioned  and  destined  of  heaven 
to  universal  and  perpetual  dominion  on  earth  as  well  as  in  heaven,  to  turn 
away  from  'American  institutions,'  French  theories,  and  British  predictions, 
toward  the  nation  that  God  has  founded  in  the  heavens.  The  true  form  of 
government  is  not  a  thing  which  remains  yet  to  be  worked  out  and  tested. 
It  was  invented  at  least  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  and  has  been  in  actual 
operation  ever  since  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  We  may  say  of  it,  as  we 
say  of  salvation — '  It  is  finished.'  When  God  laid  the  foundations  of  the 
New  Jerusc  lem,  he  gave  the  world  its  Capital.  When  he  set  his  Son  upon 
the  throne,  he  established  a  political  nucleus,  which  will  ultimately  gather 
about  itself  in  federal  union,  the  nations  of  the  earth,  or  dash  them  in  pieces. 

So  the  true  plan  of  Association,  about  which  many  in  these  days  are  busily 
scheming,  is  not  a  matter  oi  future  discovery  and  experiment.    The  church 


I 


504  OUR  RELATIONS  TO  THK   PRLMITIVB   CHURCH. 

of  the  first-born  has  been  for  ages  working  out  in  theory  and  practice,  all  the 
problems  of  social  science.  If  Fourier  has  had  access  to  the  heavenly  model, 
and  has  based  his  theories  on  the  actual  experiments  of  the  citizens  of  the 
New  Jerusalem,  his  system  will  stand.  If  not,  it  will  be  consumed  when  the 
fire  shall  try  every  man's  work. 

In  short,  the  aim  of  all  who  aspire  to  be  reformers  of  church,  state,  and 
society,  should  be,  and  we  trust  soon  will  be,  not  to  arrange  in  some  new 
form  the  patch-work  of  visible  institutions,  or  to  devise  new  schemes  of  their 
own,  but  to  enter  into  amicable  and  intimate  relations  with  the  ecclesiastical, 
national,  and  social  Phalanx  which  commenced  a  settlement  on  the  everlast- 
ing mount  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  and  is  doubtless  now  ready  to  lay  be- 
fore the  world  the  results  of  its  labors  and  investigations.  To  all  who  rever- 
ence antiquity ;  to  all  who  look  beyond  and  above  themselves  for  wisdom ; 
to  all  who  are  sick  of  existing  institutions,  and  the  air-castles  of  crude  refor- 
mers ;  to  all  who  long  for  a  tried,  immovable,  divine  basis  of  religious,  polit- 
ical and  social  organization,  we  ofier  this  advice: — 'Open  communication 
with  the  Primitive  Church;  labor  and  pray  that  THE  will  OF  GoD  MAY  BE 

DONE  ON  EARTH  AS  IT  IS  DONE  IN  HEAVEN.' 


THE     END, 


» 


^ 


^;fe 


tETURN     CIR< 

OAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  B 

1  -month  loans  may 
6-month  loans  may 
Renewals  and  rechc 

DUI 

^^?  20  19 

JAN  3    1983 

BEG.  cm.  JAii/03 

ri319848 

RECEIVEO 

iOV     6 1984 


2dLA 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


Rfri\RJ11^»g,E|&^.9 


rrs  0  8  1S09 


anta  Cr" 


»}Vn. 


ii<$^ 


UgL 


um  %  8  im 


^^^«       c/^r/c^ 


12,000(11/95) 


ORAA  NO.  DD6,  60m,  1  1  /78  BtKKbLtY,  LA  V4/'.^U 


MX)      ""^^l^. 
E    UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA 


LIBRJRy   OF   THE    UNIVERSITY   OF   CUIFORtlU 


klMP.^^^ 


r'^r"^r"«-  -"^^n; 


'"'   "«"E«SiTy  OF  cu,fO««u 


_'""'"«         t/ift4fly  OF 


^"f  *«'^«m/  OF  OuJo^.u    "^  , 


^By   OF   JHE   lijj 


# 


.v^i 


/^MS^^x  OVym 


"ffls/ry  OF  c4[iF0Ri,„ 


^'fifi4ByJ 


